Global Warming – Then & Now

Older Posts


Grinnell Gl, Glacier National Park, Montana

Then (1911)

Now (2000)

Source: South Bay Mobilization, Reuters

Moscow, Russia

Then (January 2006)

Now (January 2007)

Source: English Russia

Rong Bu Glacier, Himalayan glaciers

Then (1968)

Now (2007)

Source: Time Blog

Some other place

Then (1928)

Now (2004)

Source: St. Maarten Private Eye

Larsen Ice Shelf, Antarctic Peninsula



Source: Nasa


Pictures © Gary Braasch

Mount Hood in Oregon, in late summer in 1985 and 2002


Rhone glacier in Valais, Switzerland


Portage Glacier



Pictures © Gary Braasch

And because I was talking about some funny pictures:


What I also found interesting concerning global warming is the campaign made for Diesel:

“The advertisements feature New York completely submerged in water, St. Mark’s Square in Venice filled with tropical birds rather than pigeons, the Eiffel Tower in Paris surrounded by the jungle, a flooded Rio de Janeiro, a beachy Mount Rushmore in South Dakota and Finland, once Nordic, turned into a desert.” (Source: Duncan’s TV)

More on how some of us see the future?




Irina Alexandra is a young entrepreneur and architect, with a passion for miracles and weirdness of life.

She has been writing articles on Weirdomatic for the last 7 years in a search for all the amazing things we tend to ignore.

Related Posts with Thumbnails



42 Responses to “Global Warming – Then & Now”

  1. It’s true. It’s amazing how we have change Earth… for bad.
    But even considering the sadness we have to go forward and make it better for the best of us

  2. and with every new generation it’s worse…

  3. is this all a joke?
    the moscow picture is obviously winter in the first and summer in the second.

  4. I took the pictures from English Russia. This is what they say:

    “This is Moscow in January 2006, on the left part of the picture, and Moscow city in January 2007 to the right.

    Same place, almost same day but different year. And the one on the left – was always a normal state of Moscow in January.”

  5. To be fair, that’s weather, and not climate. Climate is a long-term trend, weather is annual variations in conditions.

  6. global warming is only your perception of the effects of all the bad drugs you’re taking

  7. *dave: you might be right… anyway.. they are just pictures and not mine. I can’t say with precision when they were taken.

    *andrew: that’s excluded… I don’t even take an aspirin when I’m ill…

    so lets blame my daily dose of alcohol… strong pure vodka 😉

  8. Dave be serious, I can believe the moscow one to be weather as we have the same thing here in Hungary, one winter is harsh teh next is mild – weather. But the glacier pictures with a 30 to 100 year difference between them clearly show that climate is changing and not weather. THe rate is accelerating too. What might have taken 100 years now takes 30 and what may take 30 years will take 5 in the near future given the current evidence for negative cycle reinforcement.

  9. Climate change is normal, current data is too recent to determine long range trends. 20 years ago the smart money was on global cooling.

    During the 1860’s, North America experienced some of the hottest years on record.

    The temperatures are rising on Mars, too. Think our heat source might have something to do with it?

  10. finally, someone pointed out mars!!!

    I guess we are causing global warming on Pluto too???

  11. OMG look humans that still don’t don’t “believe in” global warming…

    Shss the that rationalists on the internet are hunting them to extinction..
    =Poor bastards won’t make it through the next blog..

  12. honestly, it’s only bad for us and our children. we are not ruining the earth, it will survive long after we are gone. it has survived such trends before we are just speeding it up a 0.1 degree at a time.

    I’ve seen many of the retreating glaciers before and believe the effects…but many of the images you selected suck. one is not the same angle and others are just to vague. Better ones are out there!


  13. The question is ‘are we to blame or not’
    Check out

  14. This is all fake, the glaciers are expanding and there is no such a bullshit thing as global warming.

  15. Imagine you are in your car, driving… Does your world and the opinions you hold about it stop at the windshield?

    Perhaps not everything that happens to the earth, happens on the earth. To think otherwise is a bit narcissistic, don’t you think?

  16. […] Global Warming – Then & Now […]

  17. The Earth thanks our little help, but it goes on its way as did it when only dinosaurs polluted the atmosphere or even earlier. Anyway, stop the man-made carbondixide emission, the Chinese and Indian population growth, the USA and EU industries and maybe a little less gas emission by the Australian cows would help. No joke!

  18. LOL!

    RON MEXICO : “This is all fake, the glaciers are expanding and there is no such a bullshit thing as global warming. ”

    maybe in mexico they are…

    i wonder why people cant accept that if you burn billions of tons of shit, that lets out CO2, and you do that for a good 150 years , it wont have an effect…

    maybe, cause they have a pickup truck

  19. sorry i ment to write that it will have an effect… but i guess you figured it out,,, cause it makes fucking sense if you think about it ! 🙂

  20. I am a Green Party of Ontario candidate in the last provincial election.
    If all the people that say they are concerned about the environment had voted with passion and logic. The Green party would be elected in at least some ridings. But as people go they are all talk and little action.or is it they are really waiting for the panic and then say I TOLD YOU SO.
    walk the talk or shut the hell up

  21. i no this might sound a bit commie like but i’ll suggest it anyhow.
    i think there should be a cap on having children world wide and heres why—
    our little marble is slowing its rotation every year because it is getting heavier all the time.
    i know its seems harsh and such a law would ever be passed but it should at least be considered a moral law.

  22. Some of those pictures don’t really prove much, but is hard to still deny global warming.

  23. No, jojo; it doesn’t sound ‘commie’, it sounds stupid. The earth’s rotation has been slowing since the planet formed, and will continue to slow, no matter what we do. That’s just the way things work.

  24. –As the ocean levels rise, the world’s most fertile croplands will be covered by salt water. As air-cleansing forests are replaced by concrete and asphalt, temperatures will rise and pollution will clog the respiratory systems every living, breathing thing.

    –Climate change will affect entire industries (fisheries, skiers, wineries) resulting in massive unemployment. Hurricanes and typhoons will increase in number and severity. Insurance rates skyrocket for everyone, to balance claims from coastal property loss. Taxes increase because the government underwrites flood insurance policies.

    –BELIEVE IT: What you do–or fail to do–right now will affect your generation’s well-being and that of generations that follow.


  26. global warmming is fake. no such thing. and earth getting heavier? wtf! the only why for something to get heavier is to add things to it. every thing on earth was ALWAYS on earth! it cant get heavier! and all this stuff about spraying chemicals in the air and what not is stupid. were basicly spraying earth back into earth. come on, listen to yourself its stupid! colorado had record snow fall. and it was even colder then normal in AZ. there is no such thing as global warming and there never will be.

  27. one really good bomb will fix everything right up! 😉

    ‘mankind is a disease, it uses it’s host (earth) to fullfil it’s owns desire’s and greed. without a single thought for what it is doing to its host, untill all is gone then moves on to a new host.” just like cancer!….and we all know what we’d do to that!
    let’s pray mankind never reaches the stars…or were all [email protected]#ed….;)

  28. i not agree with AMR… global warmin is reality, climatic changes were always happened but… one thing is they occour naturally, quite another by pollution.

    is a fact but you will die before this happens so… sleep well

  29. The deceit behind global warming
    By Christopher Booker and Richard North
    Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 04/11/2007
    Page 2 of 2

    Have your say Read comments
    One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century.
    Former US Vice-President Al Gore

    In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the “hockey stick” because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

    Mann’s hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.

    But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.

    It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the “hockey stick”. Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union. In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin’s Russia, stage four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified.

    In the past three years, we have seen the EU announcing every kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to see the peoples of Europe accepting it.

    All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth.

    Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of question marks being raised over Gore’s alleged consensus. For instance, he claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by 20 ft when even the IPCC in its latest report, only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that, wholly unaffected by Kyoto, the economies of China and India are now expanding at nearly 10 per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting more CO2 than the US within two years.

    More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

    It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore’s closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.

    Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun’s effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.

    If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.

  30. Contrast Between Freedom 21
    and Agenda 21
    In Attaining
    Sustainable Development
    Freedom 21 Agenda 21
    Principles Based on the principles of John Locke and individual rights that form the basis of the U.S. Constitution and private property rights. Focuses on self-government where all men are created equal and have equal opportunity. Administered by a minimum of government. Based on the principles of Jean Jacques Rousseau and the “general will” (public good) as defined by the state (U.N. and NGOs). All people supposedly share equally in the wealth. Administered by command and control governance that will ultimately harm people and the environment.
    Power to make decisions primarily in the hands of the people thereby encouraging risk-taking. The only laws needed are those to enforce the golden rule (often described as common law) that no person can conduct activities that cause harm to another person or their property. Creativity to find new and better ways of doing things is encouraged by minimal regulatory structure. Power to make most decisions primarily in the hands of government and bureaucrats. Breeding ground for government corruption and arbitrary and capricious enforcement of ever expanding regulations. Stifles creativity to find new and better ways to do things because production and activities are limited by one-size fits all regulation, supposedly designed to protect the environment..
    Establishes and protects private property rights which allows the creation of needed capital for impoverished nations and provides the only proven way to eliminate poverty. It is why capitalism works in Western nations and doesn’t within centrally controlled nations. Minimizes property rights to only those allowed by the state to reduce risk of possibly harming the environment. It places nature’s perceived needs ahead of man’s real needs. By controlling property rights there is little ability to generate the capital needed to reduce or eliminate poverty.
    Encourages protection of asset value of privately owned property because of pride of ownership and the mandatory need to maintain environmental health for continued production or use. Private property rights have generally helped, not harmed the environment in Western nations. Only those environmental features that are owned in common (air, rivers, public lands, etc.) have been harmed by pollution or misuse. Invokes the Law of the Commons where property is held in common by the state through deed or regulation. No one person, family or organization has a vested interest in protecting the property for the benefits it can provide. Unless command and control regulation forces compliance with ever expanding laws to protect the environment, damage to the environment always results because there is no incentive to protect the environment..
    Depends on free markets with minimum of regulations to create incentives to maximize efficiencies of production through creativity and entrepreneurship. Depends on controlled markets by government to achieve predetermined social and environmental goals based on precautionary principle which stifles creativity and entrepreneurship.
    People As poverty stricken citizens are allowed to establish value in property for production and collateral purposes, their hidden wealth will provide the basis for future wealth and permit them to move out of poverty and into the mainstream economy and world trade. Corporate investments from developed nations may slowly increase the wealth of the nation, but in general those in greatest poverty will not benefit since most corporate profits go to corporate headquarters in the West.
    Human population will likely limit itself to a maximum of 9-10 billion people, then decline to 6-7 billion as increasing wealth in impoverished nations creates an incentive for smaller families. Human population will increase to 10-11 billion people or more because poverty cannot be eliminated. The only means of population control will be by command and control government programs to force fewer children.
    Use Land use by citizens of any nation necessarily changes biodiversity. Change in biodiversity, however, does not make land use bad. It changes the mix of age classes, species and structural components of biodiversity, but not in a way that necessarily harms ecosystem health. Biodiversity typically benefits from man-caused disturbance utilizing scientifically proven management techniques. Many European nations have intensively managed their biodiversity for centuries without overall detrimental effects. Any type of land use except that which follows “natural patterns” is viewed as potentially detrimental to biodiversity and ecosystems. The Convention on Biological Diversity calls for government to withdraw large blocks of land into wilderness reserves, surrounded by buffer zones to protect the wilderness reserves. The U.N. funded Global Biodiversity Assessment calls for as much as 30 to 50% of the land area to be so protected. There is no ecological justification for this and requires huge areas be taken out of production for human use, further reducing the ability for those in poverty to ever improve themselves.
    Having a multitude of private property owners who have a range of different land use objects creates biodiversity – not perfectly, but usually adequately. Very few species have become extinct due to land use activities by people. The greater the wealth that is generated, the better the land will be managed and protected. Land will be controlled through heavy regulation dictated by the state, supposedly to protect biodiversity and ecosystems. This will diminish creativity and productivity. Island Biogeography and conservation biology theories about population dynamics and species loss have not been proven on continents, eliminating the need for such precaution. Biological diversity will deteriorate in protected reserves as they gradually mature into monotypes.
    Water There is little evidence of man-caused global warming. Most comes from land-based data contaminated by urban “heat island” effect and inaccurate climate models. More than 17,000 scientists in the U.S. say that there is insufficient evidence for man-caused warming to consider international policy. Conversely, increasing CO2 has been proven to have a “fertilizer effect” and could increase crop production by up to 50 percent, greatly benefitting food availability to developing nations at no cost to them. The wise course of action is to prove global warming before harming the economic base of the world. The knee-jerk reaction by the international community to the possibility of man-caused global warming does not warrant international control efforts. Satellite temperature measurements show little to no warming. The so-called precautionary principle (better safe than sorry) is likely to backfire as the law of unintended consequences shows that stabilizing or reducing CO2 emissions will harm efforts to help the poor and will not permit huge increases in global food production that could solve the global food problem. Even if there is global warming, the Kyoto protocol does nothing to stop or reverse CO2 emissions, but instead is a global economic redistribution plan.
    Except in a few localized areas, water is available. Rather, it is a problem of water management – and poverty. Both problems are best addressed with property rights for citizens, free enterprise, minimal bureaucratic red tape and the elimination of hostilities between peoples and nations. The U.N. claims water is the number one problem in the 21st century and is developing a huge governmental program to “solve” this problem. Property rights and business activities will be heavily regulated, stifling the very capital and creativity that is needed to solve this problem. The huge bureaucratic solution to this perceived problem will only make the problem worse.
    Chemicals While hazardous chemicals should always be treated with respect and proper precautions, toxic chemicals do not always present a high risk-if handled appropriately. This is one of the least understood principles in modern society. The use of pesticides, if eliminated, would likely cause 26,000 additional cancer deaths in the U.S., while saving less than 20 lives. In lives saved, spending money on things like health care and residential, occupational or transportation safety is a tiny fraction of the cost of saving the same lives from environmental risks. It becomes a matter of how we spend limited resources. Environmentalists and others have made a host of false chemical scare stories and demand that we must limit or eliminate all man-made chemical use. Agenda 21 and sustainable development would limit their use based on raw emotion, not good science. All things of nature are made of chemicals. There are far more natural pesticides in plants, than are used by farmers that are man-made. About the same percentage of these natural pesticides are carcinogenic as is found in man-made pesticides. By curtailing or banning their use, people have, and will continue to die – 2 million a year by malaria due to the elimination of one chemical – DDT!
    Summary Property rights and free markets provide incentives to find a better way to meet challenges. Property rights also provide critical capital to get the poor out of poverty by giving them ownership and pride. Freedom 21 offers the best hope to meet the needs of people and the environment! Command and control governance destroys initiative and pride of citizens and leads to corruption in government. Capital is provided by big multinational corporations who reap the profits, not the laborer. Agenda 21 cannot, and will not work. It is doomed to failure!

  31. Science FAQs

    Isn’t there a scientific consensus that global warming is real and bad for us?
    There is no “scientific consensus” that global warming will cause damaging climate change. Claims that there is such a consensus mischaracterize the scientific research of bodies like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

    What do scientists agree on?
    Scientists do agree that: 1) global average temperature is about 0.6°Celsius—or just over 1° Fahrenheit—higher than it was a century ago; 2) atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) have risen by about 30 percent over the past 200 years; and 3) carbon dioxide, like water vapor, is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the Earth’s atmosphere.

    Doesn’t this mean we should be worried?
    As Richard Lindzen of MIT summarized it in The Wall Street Journal, “These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.” [Emphasis in original]

    What don’t scientists know yet?
    Scientists do not agree on whether: 1) we know enough to ascribe past temperature changes to carbon dioxide levels; 2) we have enough data to confidently predict future temperature levels; and 3) at what level temperature change might be more damaging than beneficial to life on Earth.

    Didn’t the National Academy of Sciences say greenhouse gases cause global warming?
    The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, “Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents…a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.” It also noted that 20 years’ worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-term trends.

    Hasn’t the Earth warmed precipitously over the past 100 years?
    The temperature rise of 0.6°C over the last century is at the bottom end of what climate models suggest should have happened. This suggests that either the climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought or that some unknown factor is depressing the temperature.

    Don’t climate models warn of alarming future warming?
    Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are at the extreme end of the IPCC range, and are the result of faulty economic modeling, not science (see economics section below).

    What are the realistic current estimates of future warming?
    Both James Hansen of NASA—the father of greenhouse theory—and Richard Lindzen of MIT—the most renowned climatologist in the world—agree that, even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in the next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues “predict additional warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ± 0.04°C per decade.”

    What about satellite temperature measurements?
    Evidence from satellite and weather balloon soundings suggests that the atmosphere has warmed considerably less than greenhouse theory suggests. These measurements, which cover the whole atmosphere and show only a very slight warming, show a disparity with the surface temperature measurements, which cover only a small fraction of the Earth but show sustained warming.

    Hasn’t the disagreement between satellite and surface temperatures been resolved?
    No. There is still substantial disagreement between the mid-range of the satellite measurements and the mid-range of the surface measurements. This presents a problem for climate models.

    Do other man-made factors besides greenhouse gases influence temperature?
    New research suggests that the role of greenhouse gases in warming has been overestimated, as factors like atmospheric soot, land use change, and solar variation9 all appear to have contributed significantly to recent warming.

  32. I AGREE with the one that says “Positive Proof of Global Warming”!!!! Its a positive way to look at the whole global warming thing!!!!

  33. I see the wingnuts and ‘Exxonophiles” are out if force here. Such people are impossible to communicate with, you can give them as many facts as you want, but I think they will still deny the truth of GW even when the supermarket shelves start getting emptier and coastlines start getting swamped.

    Here’s some secrets about GW. It takes decades and is slow, it does not predict that the world will suddenly get hotter all over. What it predicts is that weather patterns will become more chaotic and extreme, there will be record winters and summers, droughts and flooding, stronger or more tornadoes and hurricanes.

    Those who deny Global Warming being a reality are themselves living in a reality of ignorance, ignorance of the science and facts of nature and cause and effect. Glaciers melt and the water seeps down under them and makes them flow into the sea faster. Masses of cold fresh water entering the currents of our oceans affect them. Melting Permafrost bogs release more methane due to the rotting vegetation they are made up of.

    It’s really a failure to understand that you can’t keep pissing and shitting into the pool you are swimming in without one day suffering the consequences. To those people the World is just so big that little man is not capable of having such an effect. It’s a sign of how unable they are to comprehend the world outside their immediate surroundings.


  34. newtons law: mass can neither be created nor destroyed

  35. hmmm.. im not gonna write some big ass paragraph on this topic… all im gonn say is… IM NOT GONNA BE AROUND WHEN IT HAPPENS SO DAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE!!

  36. Those of you who cannot see the changes on this planet.. well the less said the better. you need to take a look at your own back yard, and if you can remember your childhood there. Me i cannot do that i have always been on the move. But having been in one place for the last 7 years, i already see and feel the changes. What you Sow is what you Reap

  37. this is incredible

  38. Al Gore knows how to make a buck, with absolutly nothing. Has anybody eles looked at his background?
    Do you know where he got his info? Do you know just how much he made off GW and how much he contributes to it? Laughing all the way to the bank.

    And it amazing how many fall for this. It explaines to me anyway why obama has come as far as he has.

  39. See now, I agree that some of these pics are questionable, some clearly taken from different angles or at different times of year, or even just during different weather patterns, it DOES happen

    But okay, Global Warming DOES exist….how ver its not a man made process

    a few people made really good points, maybe the SUN is getting hotter, its entirely possible, the thing is a mahooooosive thermonuclear reactor, why wouldn’t it heat up??
    Or maybe, and this is what i think, the process is entirely natural, its a third or fourth or what ever number we’re up to, ice age…im not saying we hav utterly no effect, but we dont have any where near as much of an effect as we assume we do.
    We SHOULD recycle and try to reduce our carbon emissions but acting as if we killed the earth is ridiculous. the planet is several million years old and has survived a) its tumultuos first few years when it was nothing but volcanoes and toxic gases-no one ever think maybe more heat trapping crap was bing pumped into the air then more than now?
    b) Countless meteor strikes

    c) dinosaurs. most of em where as big and bigger than busses and the like and all of them pumped out their own toxic gases…im betting between them, the meteors and the volcanoes, things where worse then than we could HOPE to make them

    Humans and our little cars are a blip on this planets time line. Yeah its sad that so much stuff seems to be getting destroyed but dudes its not out fault and to try to fix it is to fuck around with Nature and that is just stupid.

    Also, research the facts.
    the ‘concrete evidence’ and ‘quotes from experts’ about the certainty of global warming are all taken way way out of context in order to be scary

  40. […] 6,652 ah………… problem with saying it doesnt exist is what is happening outside right now………. srsly open a window look out it Global Warming – Then & Now | Weirdomatic […]

  41. Hi, can anybody recommend a way to stop this site from rendering a javascript popup in Internet explorer? Thanks

  42. hi. thank you for your feedback. we will check. 🙂

Leave a Reply