World headed for global cooling, says Brazilian meteorologist

“What will happen to the kids when they realize that, instead of warming, is cooling and that cooling is far worse for humanity?”

“When you look at the textbooks, they say that the sea level will rise … This is wrong! What are we doing? Education or brainwashing?”

9 Dec 09 – According to Professor Luiz Carlos Molion, Latin American representative in the World Meteorological Organization, post-doctorate in meteorology, and member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Berlin, reductions in carbon emissions will not affect climate.

Professor Luiz Carlos Molion

“Carbon dioxide does not control the global climate,” says Molion. “The climate is very complex and could never be dominated by CO2.

“CO2 is due to increased temperature, says Molion. “When the temperature rises the oceans release more CO2.”

“The amount of carbon released by humans is very small, negligible in comparison with the natural flows of the oceans, soil and vegetation.” Nature launches 200 billion tons of carbon per year into the atmosphere. Man launches only six billion tons.”

“Of all the people here in Brazil, maybe I’m climatologist more senior,” says Molion.

Molion, who has been studying the climate since 1970, says that when he received his doctorate 35 years ago in the United States, the “consensus” of the time was that the world was in an Ice Age.

Based on studies of paleoclimatology (the study of climatic variations over Earth’s history), Professor Molion, who teaches at the Federal University of Alagoas, guarantees that climate change is too complex to be influenced by humans.

Carbon dioxide does not control the global climate, says Molion. This has been demonstrated by research in paleoclimatology, which seeks to reconstruct past climate based on ice cores from Vostok station in Antarctica. Vostok ice cylinders, which retrace the last 4020 years, clearly show that there have been periods when we had high temperatures and low CO2 in the atmosphere.

We had strong warming between 1925 and 1946, and yet at that time man threw into the atmosphere less than 10% of the amount of carbon that goes into the atmosphere today. So that heating, which was even higher than today’s, in fact can be explained by natural phenomena. The sun was more ‘active’ in the first half of the twentieth century. In addition, virtually no volcanic eruptions occurred during that period. Thus, the air got cleaner and entered more solar radiation, causing warming.

There was a warming between 1977 and 1999 that coincides with the warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean. The oceans are major drivers of climate, particularly the Pacific, because it covers 35% of the earth’s surface. When it warms, the climate also warms: The atmosphere, the air, is heated from below, the temperatures are higher near the surface.

Since 1999, the Pacific Ocean cools. Today, there are more than 3,200 drifting buoys and diving buoys monitoring the oceans. They dive to 2,000 meters deep, moving with the current and nine days later they rise, passing their data to the satellite. This system shows that the oceans in general are cooling over the last six, seven years. And yet, over the past 10 years the concentration of CO2 continued to rise.

There is no way to control enough carbon to have an impact on the climate, says Molion.

When we say, ‘Let’s reduce emissions’, which is to say,’ Let’s reduce the generation of electricity, ” we stop growth. Everything is based on electricity. This will affect a social and economic development of countries.

I do not mean by this that we should go around trashing the environment, there must be changes in consumption habits, but carbon emissions are not the correct path.

When you look at the textbooks for children, that say that man is destroying the ozone layer, the Earth is warming, the sea level will rise … This is wrong! What are we doing? Education or brainwashing?

In my opinion, looking at all the climatic indicators, we’ll have a cooling climate in the next twenty years.

What will happen to the kids when they realize that, instead of warming, is cooling and that cooling is far worse for humanity?

See entire article:,,OI4145833-EI6580,00-Reduzir+CO+nao+impede+aquecimento+diz+Luiz+Carlos+Molion.html

Thanks to Viv in Brazil for bringing Professor Molion to my attention.

10 thoughts on “World headed for global cooling, says Brazilian meteorologist”

  1. Robert, the article you refer to (in Spanish) cannot be picked by the link….youir html at the end is missing its “l” to work!

  2. And yet another expert tells us that human-caused global warming is B.S. And yet the news outlets and governments continue to beat “the world is ending because of human-caused CO2 emissions.” How long can this go on before the majority of the news outlets and governments realized that CO2 is good, ice ages are bad?

    • It is not the intent or in the interest of government or media to ever allow the correct view of climate to ever exist. The fact that we are moving into a protracted cool to cold period is deliberately being suppressed, so this man’s opinion will not see the light of media or catch the ear of government. The deliberate misconception of AGW is to reverse population growth through starvation and wars over food. As the growing season becomes shorter and the outputs less in the northern latitudes, with the same amount being dedicated to “alternative fuels,” billions of lives will be snuffed out over the next decade, which is the true objective of the AGW BS.

  3. we have the govt radio here refusing to publish or play any dissent.
    despite a mandate for equal and fair debates.
    they dismiss any comment as “youre not a scientist yet, when really qualifed scientists also dissent they then ridicule their ability..
    funny though? they seem to have gone quiet on the goracles rants, but still push mann as being unfairly targeted and support his crap.
    I remember the ice age, overpop running outta everything scams along with ozone via enron when I was a young teen/adult.
    Every bit of it all was a LIE!

  4. D.M.Mitchel asks
    “How long can this go on before the majority of the news outlets and governments realized that CO2 is good, ice ages are bad?”
    The answer is, when the majority of people realize that news outlets and governments are bad.
    I don’t think you’ll have to wait long.

  5. Another point to make is how small a percentage of the atmosphere CO2 is, and therefore how little it rises as a percentage of the atmosphere when the absolute amount rises by 50%. The present level of 375 ppm is .0375% of the atmosphere. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, it was 250 ppm, which is 0.025%. This is a rise of 0.0125% of CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere. Such a small rise in a chemical that works physically could not make a perceptible rise in temperature, even if CO2 actually affects temperature.

    On the other hand, decomposition produces CO2 and increases as temperature rises, so CO2 would rise with temperature, as would methane, another product of decomposition said to raise temperature. Methane has also been rising, but is measured in thousands of parts per billion. Any rise in temperature is a cause, not a result, of higher CO2 and methane. The amount in the atmosphere is too low to measurably affect temperature.

  6. The specific heat of CO2 is less than 1 joule/gram. This means if one gram of Co2 absorbs one joule it increases in temperature by one degree Celsius. Also CO2 is always a gas.

    Water has a specific heat of ~ 4 joules per gram.

    But water is a solid, a liquid and a gasat ambient temperatures found on earth and the latent heat is about 333 joules per gram for melting ice and about 2400 joules pergram for evaporation.

    Also water changes phase without changing temperature.

    So when you realise they are lying about the ability of the sun to heat the Earth – remember the sun heats the moon to about 120 degrees Celsius.

    So, why don’t we fry when we realise the power coming in during the day.

    The answer is water and a convecting atmosphere.

    Heated surface air quickly rises and is replaced by cooler descending air – the result is the phenomenum known as thermals and wind.

    Secondly most of the area of the Earth’s surface exposed to tropical insolation is ocean – in fact most of the Earth’s surface is ocean ~ 70%.

    So the sun’s maximum power warms the oceans in the tropics where the water vapour content is a maximum.

    It takes 2400 joules to evaporate a gram of water and water vapour is at least 60 – 100 times the concentration of CO2.

    Thus, enormous quantities of energy are absorbed by water without increasing in temperature and convected high into the atmosphere where upon condensation the energy is released back to space.

    One gram of water vapour carries sufficient energy without increasing in temperature at all to heat one gram of CO2 to 2400 degrees Celsius.

    Which do you reckon is the more potent climate moderator – Water or CO2 ?

    While water vapour may be a “greenhouse gas” the amount of energy it has already absorbed during evaporation is some 1000 times the amount of energy involved in increasing in temperature.

    As usual the climate scientists have it backwards – obviously liquid is the “prefered” state for water at Earth’s ambient temperatures and it therefore moderates the sun’s power to heat the Earth not the other way round where it is a vapour supposedly heating the Earth.

    Compare locations like Baghdad – a desert location not even in the tropics to Singapore – an island on the equator where the sun’s power is a maximum always.

    Singapore rarely exceeds 32 degrees celsius – why ?

    Water absorbing enormous amounts of energy, evaporating, forming clouds which then have an increased moderating effect of the incoming sunlight.

    In Summer Baghdad can regularly hit 45 degrees celsius – why ?

    No water to moderate the power of the sun and no cloud formation so no moderation effect from cloud induced albedo.

    Only an idiot cannot see this obvious paradox with AGW theory when they think about it – if water vapour is a positive “feedback” then Singapore shold be wayyyy hotter than Baghdad – the humidity in Singapore can be so high you could almost swim through the atmosphere – in Baghdad it is almost non existant.

    I think climate scientists are gullible people who never questioned what they were taught.

  7. My hats off to Professor Luiz Carlos Molion. Funny how the real science view, as expressed above, has been so effectively blotted out these many years. Thanks to Rosco too for the information he presented. Since the industrial revolution, it is claimed that atmospheric CO2 has increased 100ppm (to ~380 ppm). Of this 100 ppm, how much is man made then? 100ppm times the 0.0125% increase= 1.25 ppm. The rest of the increase is due to natural out gassing and rotting vegetation, etc. Does not look like much of a problem to me.

Comments are closed.