TH!NK post

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

Global warming was cancelled. Go home.

Published 25th September 2009 - 19 comments - 2894 views -


Isn’t real life the ultimate test of any scientific theory? You predict something and then it happens or not. This is how Einstein’s theory was proven right. He predicted that rays of light are bent, when passing in the vicinity of a star (due to strong gravitation). Scientists said Einstein’s theory is madness (time slowing down, when you move faster? – insane idea). But during a solar eclipse the astronomers measured, that it really is so.

Now we have spent thirty years listening to frightening stories about upcoming terrible warming. We were told, that temperatures and sea levels would rise and rise until 2100. We have seen horror movies like Psycho, Inconvenient Truth, The Day After Tomorrow, The Age of the Stupid or Dracula.

Now we are about to witness, if these predictions were right or not. Waiting. Still waiting. Nothing comes. Standby….

The Doomsday is not coming. The Earth will not explode. In the last ten years the warming has halted. Is it just a temporary fluctuation? Or will the thermometers stand for another decade? Or will the temperatures even go down for decades?


NOAA temperatures graph


{ Ex post update of the article: Inserting a zoomed picture of of the last 10 years


Temperatures graph last ten years

End of update }


In September 2009 at the World Climate Conference in Geneva a scientist announced, that we may see cooling, not warming. The scientist is Mojib Latif from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany, an author for the IPCC. He insists not to be a “sceptic”, but he believes, that some twenty years of cooling will come. 

I was quite afraid in late 1990s when I became a climate sceptic, that the warming will go on and on. Which would prove, that I was wrong. But now after ten years of stopped warming, my opinion feels secure. Reality proves, I was right after all.

For us sceptics the cooling is no surprise. We have known for fifty years, that there should be a cooling soon after 2000. Have you ever heard about the Suess Cycle? Every cca 150-200 years solar activity drops, which brings cooling of temperatures on Earth. The last time this cooling was called Dalton minimum (around 1800 AD). The previous was Maunder Minimum (around 1650 A.D.). The previous was Spoerer Minimum (around 1500 AD). Etc.


Figure from Landscheit


You will all witness in person, that solar cycles still do govern Earth temperatures. Dropping solar activity will cool the Earth down in spite of all the CO2 we spill into the atmosphere. I must say this to my environmentalist colleagues – I hope you enjoyed your beloved global warming in 1990s, because you are not going to see it again until the very end of your lives!!!

Organising an international conference about a “fight against global warming” at the very dawn of decades of cold, is an unbelievable joke. It is like buying a swimming suit before a journey to the Arctic.

Since probably the politicians will not “seal the deal” in December, let us seal some other deal among us bloggers. Let us meet in Copenhagen on the 22st September 2050 (I will be 74). I suggest we meet at 12:00 A.M. in front of the central railway station. We will see, who was right. And who will have lost the bet, pays a beer.

I will be the one with the huge banner "I told you".


 A googled image of a happy guy


1)  Fred Pearce. World’s climate could cool first, warm later [Retrieved on 24 September 2009]  <>

2)  Theodor Landscheit. New little ice age instead of global warming? [Retrieved on 25 Aug 2009] Available at <> Figure 11 in this paper shows a prediction of next “Dalton Minimum” around 2030 and 2200. 

3) Global Surface Temperature Anomalies  [Retrieved on 25 Aug 2009] Available at <> This graph shows, that temperatures have been stagnating in the last ten years.

4) “Relieved” image taken over from <>

5) The idea, that inertial movements of the Sun (quasi-regular solar cycles) control the Earth climate was advocated also by Rhodes Fairbirdge. You do not know him? Bad for you. He is one of the most important climatologists in the world, author of the encyclopaedia of climatology. He is one of the peer reviewed climate sceptics, who allegedly do not exist (according to alarmist websites). See <>

6) Ivana Charvátová: Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion? In: Annales Geophysicae 18, 399-405 (2000) [cit. 8. ledna 2008] Dostupné na WWW <> This Czech scientist also expects decades of cooling in the early 21st century based on the regular solar cycles. Are her articles peer reviewed? Well, it is Annales Geophysicae. What do you think?

Category: Climate Science, | Tags: cooling, predictions, un climate conference, suess cycle,


Joël on 25th September 2009:

Good idea to meet at the railway station. Oill will be so expensive you’ll have to come by train.

I would recomend you to read this article which explains very well why a plateau in temperature is not going to be stable:

One of “your” sources is cited a follows:
Mojib Latif, a prize-winning climate and ocean scientist from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel, in Germany, wrote a paper last year positing that cyclical shifts in the oceans were aligning in a way that could keep temperatures over the next decade or so relatively stable, even as the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming continued to increase.

But Dr. Latif, who gives about 200 talks to the public, business leaders and officials each year, said he had been met with confusion and even anger when he tried to describe this normal variation in climate while at the same time conveying the long-term threat of global warming.

I don’t see where do you want to go? In saying we shouldn’t worry and use as many oil as we want?

Vitezslav Kremlik on 25th September 2009:

If there is no global warming coming, why should we worry about greenhouse gas emissions? We should keep using oil until we develop cheaper technology. This upcoming global cooling gives us decades of time for such research. I am pretty sure, that to our 2050 reunion I will come in my own solar powered single-seat airplane. Which will be really much cheaper than oil powered vehicles by that time. Solar rays are free of charge, aren’t they?

I will write a separate blog post about my “recommendationsů of course.

Peter Sain ley Berry on 25th September 2009:

I am afraid you are whistling in the dark. May I refer you to (for instance) the latest UNEP press release that documents the current consensus among climate scientists.  See the website (UNEP as you probably know is the UN’s environment progamme).

What is worrying is that the glaciers and icefields are melting despite the low level of solar activity that might be expected to herald the earth cooling.

If the world starts to cool I shall be most happy - but the only evidence I see is of warming.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 25th September 2009:

I know, what Mr. Consensus says, rest assured. I am just pointing out that reality contradicts his words. He predicted warming. Instead there is a cooling.

Hansen predicted, that we could have this cooling around 2009, only if we adopted drastic CO2 reducing measures, which we did not do. So much for Mr. Consensus predictions.

In the last ten years glaciers worldwide certainly are not melting (someone documented it in a discussion to my first post), since the temperatures are not rising now - I think it is self evident. You need increasing temperatures to get increasing melting, right?

David Hiss on 25th September 2009:

Looking at the graph you posted a question comes to mind. Where can you NOT see the warming? Where in that graph is cooling? If my eyes aren’t deceiving me there is a constant upward trend since around 1950. I’m sure there is soomething that makes it more complicated and as always this something may be interpreted in different ways or I simply missunderstand your message when you say “In the last ten years the warming has halted” but I can just see a line that clearly goes up. I’m looking forward to hear your interpretation.

Furthermore, the person who commented on your first blogpost was exclusively writing about Greenland, not about the rest of the glaciers.
This picture
speaks another language. At least to me.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 25th September 2009:

David, your really surprise me. Probably there is some space-time distortion between your eyes and the graph I posted.

Upward trend since around 1950?? What?? Everyone knows that the temperatures were cool between 1940s and 1970s. You can see it in the graph. No rise.

Then temperatures were rising since 1970s till around 2000. If you cannot see, that in the last 10 years the temperatures are flat, maybe it helps if you download the graph and zoom in.

Maybe you are looking just at the blue line extrapolation? If you look at the red columns, you can see, that the temperature in 2007 is the same or lower than in 2001 or during the 1998 El Nino year.

If you look at your glaciers graph it is the same. The red line shows, that the glaciers did not change much between 1970s and 2000. Then they dropped down. For the last ten years no change again.

David Hiss on 25th September 2009:

I’m sorry, I confused some numbers. Of course meant 1970. And yes, I am focusing on the blue line as I think that one year can not establish a statistical trend. It is indeed the five year trend I am looking at. I know that 2008 was not the hottest year but if I get it right (at least this time) 2005 was the hottest one to be ever recorded even without being influenced by el Nino.
And the blue line has, as I admit flattened a bit. Yet I am curious to see whats coming next. And as I still am a part did you call him…Mr. Consensus, I predict a further rise in the blue line. Yet I am ready to be proven wrong.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 25th September 2009:

I inserted a zoom in of the last ten years. Look at that. It certainly does not look as catastrophic fast warming, does it? There may be some years a bit colder of warmer, sure. But the long term trend is clear - stagnation.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 25th September 2009:

Years 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007 had virtually the same temperature. Is that not true? Years 2008 and 2009 are not in the graph yet, but they have been colder than the 2002-2007 years. I call it stagnation. How do you call it?

David Hiss on 25th September 2009:

What about calling it “a sample to small to reach firm conclusions” that would make us breathe a sigh of relief and start polluting again as much as we want?

Vitezslav Kremlik on 25th September 2009:

Yes, it certainly makes no sense to extrapolate the present trends (which IPCC however loves to do). Present trends never last.

But these are years, when the warming stopped or at least slowed down. So why am I hearing, that it “is warming faster and faster?” (They said it even in the lecture at Bella Center). I protest! Because it is not true.

Jodi Bush on 25th September 2009:

Oh to be so sure of oneself! It seems to me that you pick and choose your facts, and selectively read your sources. If you were to do a bit more probing beyond your aggregated graph you would know that in fact eleven of the past twelve years have been in the top twelve on record. The hottest years have been between 1998 and 2005, with 2002, 2003 and 2004 being the third, fourth and fifth warmest on record respectively (IPPC WGI Chapter 3 if you’d like to look into it). I’d almost say however, that such misinformation is beside the point. In one of your comments in a previous post you said that it wasn’t about doing something, it was about doing the “right thing”. Now you’re saying - let’s use up all the oil and ride in on our solar planes in 2050 to drink beer and celebrate how right you were. That leads me to assume that the “right thing” is to do nothing. For me that is unacceptable. Even if there is a slight chance that we could make a difference to the future of the planet by making some changes then I absolutely think that we should. I would prefer to wake up in 2050 and go “oh well we were wrong, but hey look how much of the rainforest still remains and how unpolluted our cities are”. Far better than the alternative.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 25th September 2009:

Jodi, I do not see the contradiction. The years 1998-2007 really probably are the hottest years on the record. I do not deny that. I am just saying, that between the beginning of the period and the end of this period, there was no rise. There is no contradiction.

The temperatures were rising 1970s - cca 2000. So now they reached very very high level. Then the rise stopped and currently is not rising. No contradiction.

And what I suggest we should do? I will tell you in another blog post.

Jodi Bush on 25th September 2009:

Firstly, from the beginning of the period to the end of the period there was a rise (i.e. 2002, 2003, and 2004 were incrementally higher than previous years). Perhaps 1998 and 2008 were as hot as each other, but since they both made the top twelve list I’m not sure if that’s a cause for celebration. Secondly, if the last 10 years have been the hottest years on record (which you don’t disagree with) then surely you can’t know for at least another decade unless temperatures have peaked.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 25th September 2009:

I agree. Often we argue just because we misintepret what the other one wanted to say. So let me make it clear:

a) Saying that “warming is faster and faster” is untrue. We certainly did have a big warming. But now it slowed down or actually halted.

b) We do not know the future. We have two predictions. IPCC predicted warming, but it suddenly stopped - contradicting the IPCC predictions. Astronomers predicted cooling (based on the solar cycles). And we really have somewhat cooling… So for me it seems, that the astronomers are more credible now, than IPCC.

Vanderhaeghen on 26th September 2009:

When I am confronted with an opinion that goes against accepted thinking, I always ask ‘why?’. The UN has come up with the result that the earth will warm with 2°C (perhaps even more). You are arguing these scientists are wrong. Now, why would a whole community of scientists, politicians, companies, civil society,... conform with this vision if it is in fact not true. In other words: what are the hidden powers pushing this climate change agenda/conspiracy in your model?

Vitezslav Kremlik on 01st December 2009:

Update: The Climategate confirmed, what I said in this post. No warming in the last decade!

CRU climatologist in his own words:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t” - Kevin Trenberth in his private e-mail.

And the alarmist climatologists were trying to hide the decline of temperatures:

Another e-mail: “Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

This article is archived. Comments are closed.