Annals of global warming: Keeling Curve gone vertical

What is the Keeling Curve?

What does it look like now?  See this graphic from the New York Times:

Keeling Curve graph and grahic, New York Times, May 11, 2013

New York Times, May 11, 2013

See the daily update of the Keeling Curve at the Scripps Institute site, University of California at San Diego.



12 Responses to Annals of global warming: Keeling Curve gone vertical

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Here’s the video of the history of CO2 in the atmosphere to which Mr. Mashey referred:


  2. Ed Darrell says:

    P.S.: John, there was a gap in the middle of your comment; I’ve put between brackets what I think you had put in that got lost. Am I close?


  3. Ed Darrell says:

    Great stuff, Mr. Mashey. Thank you.


  4. John Mashey says:

    I didn’t check to see if this is linked somewhere in your references, so if it isn’t, you might see this really nice CO2 visualization by NOAA.
    It does the Keeling Curve in an interesting way, then keeps expanding scales until it gets to 800K [years ago. Wh]y trust nonscientist lawyer “Senior Fellow” at a thinktank with a long history of helping tobacco companies kill children slowly and a “Science Director” who seems to have been a convicted felon for defrauding the EPA.


  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Anyone who will call the warmest decade in human history — and perhaps in homonid history — “cooling” instead, will lie to you about anything.


  6. jsojourner says:


    Stupid is very chic these days. I keep hoping it will go the way of the Nehru jacket, Jordache jeans and Members’ Only.

    As yet, I see no sign of decline in the trendiness associated with being ill-informed.



  7. Ed Darrell says:

    Watts wrote:

    Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions.

    Bet he can’t offer a citation to any scientist who makes such a claim.

    Joe, if he fibs about what others have said — stuff that should be on the table and easy to check out — what won’t he fib about?

    Yes, the models are wrong. The models used in the 1980s and 1990s predicted less temperature rise than we’ve seen from the CO2 already in the air; they predicted slower rise, less rise, and less violent climate events as a result.

    When Watts said the models were wrong, he didn’t say that means we have less time to act, did he?

    Oh, he’ll lie on the big, important things, too.

    Did Watts read the guy interviewed (Hans von Storch)?

    We actually do expect there to be less total precipitation during the summer months. But there may be more extreme weather events, in which a great deal of rain falls from the sky within a short span of time. But since there has been only moderate global warming so far, climate change shouldn’t be playing a major role in any case yet.

    So, what we’ve seen is minor compared to what we will see?

    Are you nervous yet, Joe?

    Here in Texas, thousands of cattle ranchers have been forced out of business. In Colorado, climate-change induced problems in the forests have led to three years of massive, record-setting, deadly wildfires. In the Midwest this year, some states expect 10% of a normal corn crop. In Pakistan, unseasonable floods kill tens of thousands, leave millions homeless, and destroy food crops for millions more. In India, the monsoons have come early, killing thousands, flooding a nation used to monsoon rains, cutting economic growth of one of the fastest growing economies on Earth.

    Something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models, yes — they give fools and misanthropes enough room to claim, against nature, humanity and God, that we don’t need to worry about global warming, and it’s not incredibly late to take drastic action to stop it.

    von Storch’s complete interview, in English, can be found at the Der Speigel site.


  8. Ed Darrell says:

    Who, among serious scientists who study climate or weather, claims temperatures have “fallen behind?”

    Don’t anyone assume what the “let it burn” hoaxsters tell us. No one has ever claimed temperatures will rise linearally. No one has ever claimed that the sole effect of global warming is higher temperatures.

    Students of meteorology will tell us that weather fluctuates — and if there is more energy in the atmosphere (the practical effect of “global warming”) then we should expect wider swings and more violent swings in extremes in weather — which is what we see.

    Meanwhile, fluctuations of the planet’s average temperatures, in normal times, should rise and fall periodically if syncopatically. What we’ve seen in the past 25 years is rise, minor fall back, greater rise, rise, minor fallback, and more rise. We haven’t seen a single month below the 20th century average temperature for more than 335 months, or nearly 28 years.

    Our two boys have both grown up and graduated from college, and neither of them has lived in a month as cool as the 20th century was on average. That’s more than a generation of super-heating.

    Who was the lying, Earth-hating, misanthropic son of a bitch who said otherwise?


  9. co2hound says:

    “If things continue …” So the question is what does it mean to have 400 ppm co2 concentration AND have the land surface temperature ‘falling behind’ or ‘not reflecting’ that concentration. Let’s forget about models and look at history … paleoclimatology to be exact. In historical terms the last time there was this concentration in the atmosphere, the climate was very, very different .. so different that 7 Bil people most probably could not live on this planet.

    Probably the simplest reason for these hiatuses in temp rise is the fact that the chaotic climate system is playing catch-up with the co2. The concentration which we control has changed much faster than nature left to itself. The response by the climate system which we do not control responds in its own meandering way and at its own speed.

    True awful political foolishness … is foolishness that assumes physics does not work … that is, established physics is somehow terminated for political reasons. Physics bats 1000 … and physics always bats last.

    Making a bet against physics is the ultimate ‘sucker’s bet’. And it seems there are many who are very happy in convincing all of us that we are indeed suckers.


Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: