Fossil fuels might cool the planet

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The uncertainty of science: New data suggests that the burning of fossil fuels might actually act to cool the planet, not heat it as predicted by all global warming models.

Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place. Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced – which causes the global greenhouse effect.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols – also given off by burning fossil fuels – actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

Not surprisingly, some of the scientists who wrote this study, who also happen to be central to the tampering of global temperate data at NASA to create the illusion of more warming in the last century than the raw data indicates, immediately spun the result as proof that carbon dioxide is a greater threat for global warming than they previously thought. How they came to this conclusion is to me quite inexplicable, unless they really don’t care what results they get as long as they can say that humans are killing the planet.



  • “. . . as predicted by all global warming models.”

    The same-same global warming models that have utterly failed to predict climate? That’s the standard by which new data is judged? Belief in a demonstrably false worldview is a working definition of insanity. These people don’t need a platform; they need treatment.

  • Cotour

    I started to read that article the other day and just shook my head, they can not make up their minds, they have every eventuality covered as long as they can call it under the new label “climate change”.

    The ultimate goal? Confusion, fear and chaos to be lassoed and ridden by the political class in order to create
    a workable U.N. styled model of control over everyone on the planet.

  • D K Rögnvald Williams

    A liberal friend of mine was going on about so-called “climate change,” and the evils of oil companies, and I asked him if climate change was partly responsible for the rise of ISIS. He did a double-take and responded, “That’s ridiculous. Where did you hear that?”

    “Hmm. So, an increase in global temperatures of a degree or so doesn’t cause jihadists to form an Islamic state?”

    “Of course not. That’s crazy talk.”

    “That’s reassuring.” I couldn’t bring myself to inform him this was a view purported by his favorite president. He wouldn’t have believed me anyway.

  • Cotour

    Why would you not confront him with the reality that he has stated that was “ridiculous”?

    His “American” hero is selling exactly what he rejects, that has to at least cause him to stop for a moment and actually think. Not that he would in any way see your point and change his perspective in any way shape or form, he has chosen his side.

  • Edward

    Blair Ivey wrote: “That’s the standard by which new data is judged?”

    I suspect that the point is: not only have the models failed to predict the cessation of temperature increase (supposedly as the Kyoto Accord intended, so we are saved from global warming), but that the models are fundamentally incorrect. The models are based upon the hypothesis that increased atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels causing increased temperatures, then if it is true that burning fossil fuels causes lower temperatures, the models are flawed in their fundamental assumption. No wonder the models have failed to predict reality. Unless the models correctly predict reality, then the models (not reality) are wrong.

    I feel as though we have come around a full circle. When I was in grade school, the teachers, Time Magazine (and other media), and the scientists that they referenced were telling us that burning fossil fuels was causing global cooling, which might start another glacial period.

    I remember this well, because they told us that the polar ice cap would be two miles thick and extend as far south as Minneapolis, where I lived at the time. I strongly remember looking into the sky trying to imagine my house, school, and the Twin Cities under two miles of ice (I failed), and wondering if the people in Arizona would allow millions of Minnesotan ice-age refugees to move there.

    At least today we are reassured that there is a strong totalitarian, dictatorial government that is committed to saving us from the coming ice age/global warming/temperature pause/climate change/climate-caused jihad/whatever-the-problem-of-the-day that they imagine, caused, or emphasize. When centuries count, it is reassuring that the government will over-tax, tyrannically rule, and economically stifle us today so that when the glaciers eventually come, no one will notice the resulting reduction of the economy.

  • Edward: Your first paragraph illustrates my frustration with AGW models. They aren’t calibrated. The majority of my experience with computer models comes from my time as an energy analyst. In that field, you model the client’s structure(s), then you input historical data to see if the model will correctly predict known energy usage. This is the process of calibration. You want to make sure that the model will track system behavior.

    NONE of the climate modeling programs of which I’m aware have come anywhere close to modeling what’s actually happening with the Earth’s atmosphere. This is Progressive ‘thinking’ in action. Someone came up with a model they thought should be true, and then based an entire industry off of it, without bothering to see if in fact the model matched the reality.

    As I age, I become more of a fan of H.L. Mencken:

    “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

  • pzatchok

    Global weather models.

    Just as accurate as those biorhythm charts.

  • Edward

    Blair Ivey wrote: “… my frustration with AGW models. They aren’t calibrated.”

    This is the fundamental problem with the models. Even those that were given historical data failed to correctly predict past climate behaviors.

    The fundamental problem with the people who advocate these models (including various politicians as well as supposed scientists) is that they ignore the facts that the models never worked beyond a few years, which is before they could be reasonably expected to deviate from reality. To use them to predict many decades or centuries into the future is folly.

    Real scientists and engineers know better; we are responsible for predicting whether our models and products actually work in the real world. That is how we make airplanes fly, for example.

    Aren’t you glad (I mean everyone, not just Blair) that the the climate scientists who advocate these failed models aren’t responsible for the performance of the airplanes that you fly on?

    And now we seem to have regressed to the models — or is it just the hypotheses? — from the 1960s as being more reflective of reality than the models of the 1990s. “The uncertainty of science” is the right phrase. There are some things that we are certain of, such as Bernoulli’s principle, and some things that we are not so certain of, such as the physics that Randall Munroe tries to explain with his fictitious “Fixion” particle:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *