Signs Of Strengthening Global Cooling

Blue planet

Climatic cyclic history repeats itself, even if you ignore it.

And it does so because it is so powerful that it neither allows itself to be suppressed nor appeased. Guest writer Matti Vooro presents here his latest work on why the future is looking cooler. This is also the view of a growing number of scientists. Expect cooling over the next 30 years. And look at Bastardi’s 8-minutes of education.  


    by Matti Vooro

For about 2 decades we have been told to urgently act against unprecedented global warming or else there will be fiery gloom and doom for the world. Yet, the opposite seems to be happening.

The entire planet has stopped warming since 1998 and, more significantly, has started to cool since 2003. Instead of warning people of cooler weather for the next 30 years, there’s still the distinct false sense of expectation of unprecedented warming. People and governments are being urged to go entirely in the wrong direction for the wrong reasons – and at a potentially horrendous price.

Just look at what happened in UK. Ten years ago Britons were told to expect global warming only and that snow would be a thing of the past. Yet the opposite has arrived, three winters in a row. This winter it crippled the entire nation for nearly a month in December 2010.

Periods of cooling and warming in the past

Alternating periods of warm and cooler weather have been with us as far back as our climate records go. Some of the past cooler periods have been more severe than others, like the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Minimums. Professor Don Easterbrook has documented some 20 such cool periods over the last 500 years, see Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Easterbrook also said:
” “Climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate
warming and cooling with a 25-30 year period for the past 500 years.”
• “There is a strong correlation between solar changes, the PDO, glacier
advance and retreat, and global climate allow us to project a consistent
pattern into the future.”
• “Expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more
damaging than global warming would have been.”

Figure 2 shows the kind of cooling Professor Easterbrook projects into the future:

Figure 2


So why are the IPCC and AGW science so silent about the possibility of global cooling? It’s because the IPCC never had a mandate to study all causes of global warming - only the man induced component. Now other scientists are finding that the man-made warming seems to be dwarfed by natural planetary factors. Here is what IPCC said what Europe should expect in the future:

Annual mean temperatures in Europe are likely to increase more than the global mean. The warming in northern Europe is likely to be largest in winter, and largest in the Mediterranean area in summer. The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe, and the highest summer temperatures are likely to increase more than average summer temperature in southern and central Europe.”

The last winters are showing the contrary is true.  Let’s take a look at the last period [26 years] of cooler weather in Europe [1962-1987] and the most frequent climate variables present during that period:

Last UK and European cold period, what were the more common climate factors present?

An analysis winter temperatures for Central England’s last cold period of 1962 -1987 shows that 20 of 26 years were below the winter normal of about 4.8°C. Of these 20 years, negative winter AOs were present 90%  of the time [18 years], negative winter AMOs were present 85% of the time [17 years ], negative winter NAOs were present 65% of the time [13 years] and negative winter PDOs were present 45% of time [9 years].  

It would appear that for UK, the presence of negative or cool AO, AMO  and NAOs was significant in predicting below normal winters and these below normal winters happened more frequently – about 2 out of every 3 years during this cooler period. The ENSO sign was fairly equally distributed, 5 La Nina years, 8 El Nino years and 7 neutral years. El Nino years seem to set up more negative winter AOs, which allow more cold Arctic air to come south [like the 2009/2010 winter].

What does the UK Met Office say about global cooling?

The UK MET Office says that a decade of cooling is possible but only once in every 8 decades. And so they have already played their card as the past decade 2001-2010 had a flat temperatures trend. So by their predictions, there will be no further periods of cooling or flat global temperatures for another 8 decades. In order for the Met Office prediction of a temperature rise of 4° C by 2060 to occur, our current rate of warming trend would have to 18 times faster than today (Using data from WOOD FOR TREES).

What about the warm year 2010?
It is a no-brainer to have an extra warm year like 2010 during a strong El Nino. The year 1998 was also such a warm El Nino year. These are natural causes that drive up the temperatures during the El Nino years. Yet there has been no statistical warming since 1995. Also we have had 4 El Ninos during the last 9 years. This is more frequent than in the past when they happened once every 4-7 years. Eight of the last 10 years have been affected by the natural occurring El Nino to some degree. Thus the prime reason for the warm decade and the warm the 2010 winter in Canada is the El Nino and PDO. This has very little to do with global warming or increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

For Canada, if you exclude the El Nino winters of 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2010 the Canadian winter temperature departure [anomaly] from the 1948-2010 norm has actually been dropping during the last 10 years since 2000 from 2.5C in 2000 to 0.3C in 2009, the last very cold winter. Some regions like the Prairie Provinces and Northwestern region have seen as much as 7.1 C drop in winter temperatures from the 2006 to 2009 winter.

What is behind our changing climate?

The answer appears to be the natural variability of ENSO events and the regular variation in the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic surface temperatures as measured by the PDO and AMO indices, changes in the Arctic Oscillation or AO, volcanic activity, and solar cycles. Let’s look back at quite recent history of these real climate makers.

Table 1

What is the impact of ENSO, PDO, and AMO cycles?

During negative or cool phases of PDO and AMO, there are more La Ninas than during the positive phases. This contributes to more cold winters and colder years during negative PDO.

During positive or warm phase of PDO and AMO, there are significantly more El Ninos. This is why there is more warming when the PDO is positive.

Global warming resulted from the near simultaneous occurrence of the warm or positive PDO and the warm or positive AMO. The PDO is a residual or after affect of ENSO events in the Pacific. Both the PDO and AMO effects may have part or all of their origins in and SST cycles and the deep ocean circulation pattern called MOC or Meridional Overturning Circulation which flows through all the major oceans.

The current negative or cool PDO and the La Nina are why we have had all the recent cold weather. The La Nina’s may have directly contributed to the Red River Flooding of 2009 and the recent flooding in Australia and Brazil. For typical effects on North American climate of both AMO and  PDO see the following referenced paper

Another key factor which will soon [ in 1-4 years] start to contribute to the global cooling of US and Canadian east coasts, the western coast of Europe and the Arctic will be the cooling of the North Atlantic as measured by the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation or AMO. This cooling started after 2005. But the AMO is affected by ENSO cycles, especially El Ninos, so we saw a brief warming of AMO during 2010. Climate history shows that global cooling was strongest when both the PDO andAMO were both simultaneously in the negative or cool mode - like in 1964-1976 and again 1916 to 1923. The AMO has been in the positive or warm mode since 1994. Its cycle is not as predictable as the 60 year PDO cycle, but more recently it followed the pattern of the PDO wait a lag [about a 20-year lag].

Its cycles have been quite variable. During its last cycle it was in the negative or cool mode for 30 years (1964-1994] and its cycle seems to be related to the Meridional Overturning Circulation [MOC] and the changes in the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation [THC]. There are a number of estimates when it will again go negative. My best estimate is about 2015 based on the most frequent past intervals of around 20 years and the cooler waters that feed the MOC from the Southern Oceans. Once it does go negative, the global temperature anomalies may drop further until about 2030, the Arctic temperature may cool further and the Arctic ice extent should increase again.

What is the latest evidence of global cooling?

Planetary cycles cooling
- PDO has gone negative and cooling since Sept ember 2007 [probably for the next 20 -30 years]
- AMO has peaked and has started its decline again since July 2010. It is anticipated to go negative or cooling by 2015
- SOI has been high positive [around +20] since July [predicts cold weather 5-7 months later]
- AO and NAO are now more frequently at higher negative levels [AO had record monthly low of -4.266 in Feb 2010 and nearly -5 in December 2010]
- Solar activity continues low at near minimum levels
- Most Global mean temperature anomaly data sets show recent dropping anomalies in 2010
- Ocean SSTs are dropping
- Ocean heat content rise has leveled off for the last 6 years [major decline in the North Atlantic Ocean heat content]

World climate cooling
- Europe and Asia have had three cold winters in a row [new low record colds set 2010 in many regions]
- European annual temperature anomalies [land] have been dropping since 2007
- UK [CET] annual temperatures have been dropping since 2006[4years]
- 2010 was the coldest year [[8.83 C] for Central England UK since 1986 or in 14 years [8.74 C]
- UK Winter temperatures have been dropping since 2007 [4 years]. Last two winters were record cold in UK 
- North American annual temperatures have been cooling since 2006
- Canadian winters have been cooling since 2001[El Nino winters excluded]
- US had one of its worst winters in 2010[15th coldest since 1895] despite an El Nino
- Record snow or new cold temperatures set in December 2010
- Sweden had coldest December in 110 years,
- UK had coldest December since in 120 years
- Germany had coldest December in 41 years
- Ireland had coldest December since 1881 or in129 years
- Similar cold records set in the Middle East, the Korean peninsula, the Caribbean,  U.S. and Canadian Pacific Northwest, China, and India

Snow extent
- 2010 had the 2nd most snow extent for Northern Hemisphere since the1978/1979 winter [2008 had the 3rd highest since 1967]
- 2010 had the highest winter snow extent since 1967 and the extent has been climbing since 2006
- 5 of the 11 highest snow extents for Eurasia have happened since 2003[2003 was the2nd highest since 1967] 

What is happening to global mean temperature anomalies?

Let’s do some fact-checking about our current global mean temperature anomaly.

Figure 3

The HADCRUT 3GL GLOBAL temperature anomalyshown in Figure 3 has been flat now for ten years in a row andis actually decreasing at least square trend slope of -0.0026 C per year. IPCC forecast called for an increase of 0.21 C per decade [+.0021C /year] for each of the next two decades [from 2000]. They predicted an anomaly of 0.6 by 2010. The actual is 0.392 C and it is falling.

Something seems very wrong with the IPCC science and their predictions as the actual temperatures are going in the opposite direction to what they predicted despite the CO2 changes and this is only after the first decade of their forecast

Here are the global mean temperatures from 4 different datasets(least square trend line slope Jan-2001 to Oct-2010, last 118 months – Wood for Trees):

HADCRUT 3GL – 0.0026 C/year
RSS: + 0.0034 C/ year
GISS: + 0.0080 C/year
UAH: +0.0093 C/year
Composite + 0.0044 C/year

Can any sane people detect four thousandths of a degree C change per year and measured it across the entire globe? This is how absurd the global warming alarmism game has gone.

The historical Global Temperature Anomaly [GMTA] can be best visualized to consist of  a linear anomaly component rising  on the average  rate of  0.0059 C per year since 1880] or 0.0045 C /year going back 150 years,  according to IPCC figures plus an OSCILLATING component having a sinusoidal-like function with an amplitude of approximately 0.3C  These two anomalies add and interact to produce  an approximate 60 year cycle with alternating 30 years of cooling with 0.42C temperature drop and 30 years of  warming with a 0.77°C temperature rise.

This pattern is somewhat modified by short term  rises or drops  in temperature  due to ENSO cycles (EL NINO raises and La NINA lowers), major volcanic eruptions (VE4+) plus any changes in solar output. These short term disruptions can be significant (+/- by as much 0.40 to 0.5C outside the equation model).

What are the AGW forecasts for the future?

IPCC forecast: 2.4 to 6°C by 2100, or  0.02 to 0.06°C/year, which is 4 to 13 times the current observed rate of rise.
Met Office forecast: 4°C by 2060, which is 0.08°C/year [18 times the current observed rate of rise.

What do non-AGW scientists project?
There is a growing list of over 30 different international climate scientists, academics, meteorologists, climate researchers and engineers who have researched this topic and who disagree with AGW and IPCC forecasts of unprecedented warming, and are projecting  cooler weather for the next 1-3 decades. Few are even AGW supporters but disagree with warming projected for the next decade (See .Each of the writers gives their views about why they feel global cooling is ahead during the next 10-30 years. These authors expand on the natural  factors affecting our future climate especially the impact of the possible reduced solar cycles in the future  which this writer did not expand on  at this time for brevity sake.

What do past planetary cycles project?

We just peaked on the last warm cycle in the early 2000’s and may have now started a 30 year cool cycle which will drop the global temperature anomaly by 0.42°C by 2030. There will still be some warm El Ninoyears as well but the overall trend will be cooler than the last 30 years. Based on the colder anomaly of 0.06C by 2030, the temperatures are likely to be similar to those of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The Hadcrut3 temperature anomaly is as of Sept/2010 0.391°C and it could drop to 0.16°C by 2020 and probably bottom out at about 0.06°C by 2030. The IPCC prediction is for 0.2°C increases for each of the next two decades andthe anomalies to be around 0.8°C by 2020. The two different projections, namely the natural planetary cycle forecast and the IPCC forecast are rapidly diverging.

Figure 4 is a graph of  past and projected global mean temperature anomaly rise as presented by Syun-Ichi Akasofu (Founding Director and Professor of Physics, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska):

Figure 4

Figure 5 below is taken from a paper called Predictions of Global Man Temperatures & IPCC Projectionsby Girma Orssengo and was previously posted on WUWT. It is a simple mathematical model or over-fit empirical model based on curve fitting for the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly[GMTA] based on Hadcrut3. The equation or model is not calculated from any measurable parameters other than actual past global temperature anomalies. Although it is not calculated from any physics, energy mechanisms or physical realities underlying the equation, it is still an informative graph to some degree. It is based on actual past empirical data [hadcrut3] since 1880.

There is no guarantee that any future projection of this graph will actually materialize [neither is there evidence that the current agw computer models have any credibility yet either]. However, the graph below may still be useful. It is like the “poor man’s “global temperature model and indicates the following;

* The graph is a general climate trend indicator only based on historical past pattern [ is the cycle heading up or down?]
* There exists a repetitive 60 year climate cycle of 30 years of warming followed by 30 years of cooling.
*There could be two cooling cycles before we reach 2100 which may dwarf and over-ride any greenhouse gas warming
*It is probably more useful and accurate in the short term [next 10-30 years]

Figure 5

Figure 6 is a graph showing  the possible  future GMTA anomalies by year by showing the HISTORIC NATURAL PLANEATARY CYCLES and  the middle IPPC projected scenario of 3.0°C rise by 2100]. Some of the other IPCC scenarios see temperatures rising in the range of 2.4 to 5.3°C by 2100 and which would have even steeper rates of temperature rise.

Figure 6

See the web page reference and paper below by Girma Orssengo for further details of the GMTA FORECAST model and equation and especially Figure 3 on page 4 illustrating the GMTA graph for the years 1880 -2100. Much of the GMTA information comes from his paper posted on WUWT 

Why there could be less warming in the 21 st century than the past 2O TH Century [quote from the above Girma Orssengo paper]

…the century [20th] started when the oscillating anomaly was at its minimum near 1910 with GMTA of –0.64 deg C and ended when it was at its maximum near 2000 with GMTA of 0.48 deg C, giving a large global warming of 0.48+0.64=1.12 deg C. This large warming was due to the rare events of two global warming phases of.77 deg C each but only one cooling phase of 0.44 deg C occurring in the 20th century, giving a global warming of 2*0.77-0.42=1.12 deg C.

In contrast to the 20th century, from Figure 3, there will be nearly no change in GMTA in the 21st century. This is because the century started when the oscillating anomaly was at its maximum near 2000 with GMTA of 0.48 deg C and will end when it is at its minimum near 2090 with GMTA of 0.41 deg C, giving a negligible change in GMTA of 0.41-0.48=-0.07 deg C. This negligible change in GMTA is due to the rare events of two global cooling phases of 0.42 deg C each but only one warming phase of 0.77 deg C occurring in the 21st century, giving the negligible change in GMTA of 0.77-2*0.42=-0.07 deg C.

Noteworthy is that none of the predictions based on planetary cycles project global temperatures to go up by 2 or 4  or 6 degrees C as forecast by the IPCC or Met Office. These forecasts based on planetary cycles like those of Professor Easterbrook and Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu predict a rise of less than 1 C by 2100, similar to what happened during the past 20th century.  

Also Dr Roy Spencer of University of Alabama and Professor R. Lindzen of MIT feel that the global temperature rise might only be around 1°C by the end of the current century.


During the next 10-30 years we may experience cooler weather rather than unprecedented warming only. It does not mean that all of the next 10 -30 years will be colder, as there will be some warm El Nino years as well, but the overall trend for the next 2-3 decades may be cooler rather than unprecedented warming that AGW supporters claim.

There is no one on this planet who can tell with any certainty what the climate will be like 1 year ahead, next decade and most certainly not the 100 years. The purpose of this article was to show that there are other possible climate futures which do not necessarily require major reduction of carbon dioxide emissions up front. Another version of this climate which is based on natural planetary cycles may manifest much more likely with much more global impact and could occur much sooner than unprecedented global warming. Some of the winters could be quite severe like we saw during the latter part of the 1970’s. The initial observed signs from the real world are that the cooling option has already started in many parts of the globe.

 Matt Vooro, P. Eng

 Also refer to the following for further information about global cooling option



119 responses to “Signs Of Strengthening Global Cooling”

  1. DirkH

    Very good representation of the trends, Matti, thank you!

    I don’ t think we will see a repeat of the 1945-1977 cooling phase. The reason i don’t believe this is the behavior of the sun. I think we will see an end to the long-term warming trend and a return to LIA conditions. Increased CO2 levels might alleviate the effects to a tiny degree (i don’t dispute its LWIR properties), but we will have bigger problems than measuring by how much; its influence will drown in the influence of the sun. (Which will work through the Svensmark mechanism, greatly increasing cloudiness and thus albedo)

    All speculation but my current best guess. I do not want to frighten anyone; our technology will help us survive through this. The misguided energy policy of the EU is collapsing right now, and will be reformed. As i posted yesterday, the feed-in tariffs are being reduced across most European nations right now; the Solar industry directs its hopes towards India and SE Asia.

    1. Bernd Felsche

      I wouldn’t be so sure that everybody’s prepared for cooling. In this Focus article there’s a prediction of severe disruptions to the electricity grid due to the expansion of “renewable energy”, something of which many with an inkling of how a supply grid works, have been warning for a decade.

      But the same article fails to mention all those cuddly coal-fired power stations coming online over the next year or so … about 10GW. Not that coal-fired power generation is typically able to respond quickly enough to the holes and mountains that “renewable” generators put onto the grid with little or no warning. But at least the baseloadwon’t need to be filled with so much gas.

      1. DirkH

        Found a list of new coal power plants in Germany, under construction, in planning or “planning stopped” (probably thwarted by the Greens)

        Doesn’t look that bad. With regard to the destabilizing influence of renewables: new installations have to adhere to the Mittelspannungsrichtlinie or Medium Voltage Guideline and have to stop feeding in when the grid frequency becomes too high AFAIK so that’s not a danger. They will be paid for what they *could* have delivered, though, so it’s an economic loss. But probably cheaper than the Euro crisis. ;-)

    2. Nonoy Oplas

      China investing big in solar and wind energy development is a win-win move. It can reduce howls against its many new coal power plants being commissioned monthly, while it also earns more forex revenues exporting renewable energy like solar panels and wind turbines and blades.

      On another note, cooling in Asia continues. The big and wide Han river in Seoul, for instance, has already frozen. I gathered a new collection here,

  2. DirkH

    These people still bet on the wrong horse:
    “Abu Dhabi’s bid to be a pioneer of clean energy”
    Video; interview with several solar salesmen on a trade fair – “We need incentives”. Nice incoherent sales pitches.

  3. Don B

    In 2005 solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladivir Bashkirtsev bet $10,000 with climate modeler James Annan that global temperatures would be cooler in 2012-2017 compared to 1998-2003.

    Note that cosmic rays at the recent solar minimum have been the highest – solar activity the lowest – since the Oulu record began. My betting is that the Russians correctly anticipated the weaker sun. choice&picture=on

    Oh, by the way, nice article.

  4. Dana

    Good compilation of every myth which tricks people into thinking the planet is going to cool. Throw in some non-climate scientist opinions and claim that all climate scientists are biased. It’s a one-stop shop!

    1. DirkH

      You’re the first to call the PDO a myth. Congrats.

      1. Dana

        I did no such thing. But PDO doesn’t have much impact on global temperatures. And besides which, it’s cyclical, meaning even any short-term cooling effect it has will just be reversed in the next positive cycle.

        1950-2000 saw one positive and one negative PDO cycle. During that period, the planet warmed more than half a degree Celsius. Even in the mid-20th Century during the negative PDO, with accelerating human aerosol emissions on top of it, the cooling effect barely overcame the GHG warming. And our GHG emissions are much larger than they were 60 years ago.

        Sorry, PDO is a red herring. It exists, it’s just not going to cause significant coooling.

        1. Jack Bailey

          Dana…..I don’t know who you are, but you are misled…..greatly….not a shred of science do you understand……another libtard I suppose……trying to make a point where none is to be made.

  5. Ed Caryl

    After the recent items about temperature measurements on TheAirVent and WUWT, along with the UHI discoveries, and the work, I’m beginning to doubt ANY 20th century warming. This article reinforces that judgement.

    1. Dana

      Funny, because the satellites show a 0.16°C per decade warming trend. But it’s probably UHI from the alien cities in orbit around the Earth.

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      “I’m beginning to doubt ANY 20th century warming.”

      Ed, I would have to say again, when you make statements like this you place yourself well outside the realm of skeptics like Lindzen and Spencer. UHI is just not a viable concept, as Dana points out, shown merely by comparing ground based data sets to satellite data sets. If these two agree (as they do) then UHI absolutely can not be a factor.

      1. Ed Caryl

        Did you and Dana read the Providence article below?


    DIRK H

    You said “I don’ t think we will see a repeat of the 1945-1977 cooling phase.”
    I tend to agree with you that the global temperature anomaly trough will not go as low [ say not below -0.3 C] Maybe a trough closer to say 0. 0.0 C anomaly. I don’t think we will go to sustained global temperature anomalies that existed before the Pacific Climate shift of 1976. My feel is that we will see temperature anomalies that perhaps existed in the late 1970′s and early 1980′s. There were some wild years in 1978 and 1979 .In individual months and years and particularly regionally we could see lower temperatures like we have seen during the last two winters. Is the cooling period going to last as long as the 1945-1976 period. ? There are short periods of cooling and longer periods . Personally I think this will be the longer type . Things are changing rapidly as El Nino’s and La Ninas do not behave exactly as in the past . Sudden blocking highs appear out of no where.
    Things are bound to change even more during the next several decades . We could also have a major volcanic eruption any time? The exact impact of the low solar activity is not certain.

    1. DirkH

      There is a lot of volcanic activity in Kamtchatka ATM; and i just found a report that comes from Der Spiegel. Africa is breaking apart in Ethiopia; strong activity since November. A chasm seems to be opening. Researchers say the formation process of new ocean floor is happening on land now, and fresh magma from below presses the land apart.

    2. DirkH

      Oh, and you misunderstood me.
      “You said “I don’ t think we will see a repeat of the 1945-1977 cooling phase.”
      I tend to agree with you that the global temperature anomaly trough will not go as low [ say not below -0.3 C] ”

      I have the opinion that it will go LOWER than the 1945-1977, much lower. It will take decades, though. The reason is the quiet sun. 1945-1977 had the highly active sun of the 20th century. We don’t have that anymore. It’s the big game changer.

      The warmists always talk about “warming in the pipeline” and “missing heat that will come back to haunt us”; meaning latency of the climate system. This knife cuts both ways.

      The silent sun is only a few years old now; and the ocean is our heat storage. If the sun doesn’t re-awaken to its highly active state, we will see cooling for a long time from now.

      1. DirkH

        And as nice as a CO2 blanket is, it won’t help us much. Its effects have been vastly overblown by Gore, Hansen Maybe half a degree C or whatever, barely measurable and completely irrelevant.

        1. Bernd Felsche

          IIRC, the atmosphere has enough heat in it to keep us warm for just 60 hours. Turn off the sun (as athought experiment) and the atmosphere above the surface will be too cold to breathe within 60 hours.

          OTOH, the oceans will remain warm for much longer, having a layer of insulating ice on top.

          1. DirkH

            I thought about “warming in the pipeline” after Dana pointed me to his “scepticalscience” writeup. Now, i thought, he can’t mean Trenberth’s “missing heat”, because it’s not there. I thought – they probably mean that higher CO2 concentrations reduce the capacity of the Earth to cool off due to the LWIR re-radiation.

            But there is simple proof that this is not the case to any significant amount. It is the speed with which the last La Nina cooled the planet down. It is in no way different from earlier La Ninas.

          2. Dana

            Instead of “thinking about it” (a.k.a. making incorrect assumptions about what the term means), maybe you should actually research it. A novel concept, I know.

          3. DirkH

            Dana, consider an anger management course.

        2. Rob Honeycutt

          “Maybe half a degree C or whatever, barely measurable and completely irrelevant.”

          This is a completely unsupportable statement.

          1. DirkH

            I don’t care because, frankly, it will not matter one jot whether it’s 0.5 or 0.75 if it cools like i expect.

            Rob, BTW, all that the greenhouse effect can do is redistribute the energy in the atmosphere a little, ever thought about that? It would get warmer near the surface and cooler higher up, leading to a higher temperature gradient and consequentially to stronger convection, more evaporation, more heat transport by non-radiative means.

            I have a prediction. Until the year 2100, we will see at least 400 revisions to the climate models, each time resulting in a different temperature projection. And in the year 2100, they will finally be able to perfectly predict the temperature in the year 2100.

        3. Cayl

          Could not agree more!! The affect of CO2 on climate has been “politically” overblown. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that increased CO2 levels today has minimal effects on temperature. Contrary to popular belief CO2 IS NOT A GOOD GREENHOUSE GAS when compared to methane, say, and is only significant if atmospeheric compositions become similar to Venus!

          Global cooling is occurring and will become more extensive. What “we” as the humane race MUST to do is prepare for the real possiblility of a much cooler world in the coming decades.

  7. DirkH

    Der Spiegel about Ethiopia’s volcanic activity in English:,1518,740641,00.html

  8. richcar 1225

    I have been very impressed with the Altai glacier ice core study that compared solar proxies and global temps 750 years in the past. They found a 20 year lag between solar and temps. If you consider that solar peaked between 1980 and 1990 and then began to decline you would expect the decline to begin in 2010.
    This is exactly what is happening. Since we have already experienced twenty years of declining solar activity then we can expect at least twenty more years of decline. While the study claimed that only 50% of the warming at the ice core site could be explained by solar in recent times it turns out that the temp at the site is twice the global average.

  9. Mervyn Sullivan

    If there is one thing that demonstrates why the IPCC’s mantra (i.e. CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is causing catastrophic global warming) is in limbo, it is the recent attempt by warmist pseudo-scientists to attribute the freezing winter weather in the northern hemisphere, and the floods in the southern hemisphere, to global warming. Basically, with such rationale, they are telling us that any weather event, hot or cold, droughts or floods, or whatever… it’s all due to man-made global warming. Honestly, how stupid are these people?

    But really, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, as far as these warmist pseudo-scientists are concerned, ‘the science is settled’. But for the rest of the genuine scientific community, the quest continues for more scientific knowledge to better understand the complexity of the numerous factors that influence changes in climate.

    1. Dana

      This winter hasn’t been freezing in the northern hemisphere. In fact it was extremely hot (relatively speaking) in the Arctic, which may very well be why it was cold in parts of Europe and North America.

      It really bugs me when people assume that their local weather represents the entire planet (or half of it).

      1. Doug

        Dana, isn’t that what the Global Warming crows had been doing for some time now?

  10. R. de Haan

    Very good article, thanks for posting this.

    “the IPCC never had a mandate to study all causes of global warming – only the man induced component”

    They never had the mandate to study anything else but the anthropogenic component of CO2 because they were not interested in anything else.

    If their is any indication we are dealing with a political doctrine here it is this fixation on CO2.

    That didn’t stop the UN IPCC to produce flimsy reports about other aspects but these had all to do with the scare aspect, the propaganda to sucker the public and massage them to accept their sick measures.

    You can bet your life on the fact that we’re going to be in for a tough ride, even if we have ice age conditions tomorrow they are planning for energy rationing and even prohibition.

    Why? because they have decided to.

    Why do I know this for sure?

    WUWT just published an article on shale gas that concludes that we have energy available for the next 250 years to power the world.

    So lack of energy is not the reason and even if we didn’t have shale gas we still wouldn’t have energy shortages but the peak oil doctrine is an integral part of the doctrine that’s roled out here.

    They simply have decided to shut down our economies and reduce the world population.

    My last doubts evaporized when I read this Interpol report:

    Organized Crime and Energy Supply to 2020

    They are planning for scenario III

    So if you ask yourself what all the camera’s on along the highways and city centers are fore you now get a hunch of what’s coming.
    They are in place to catch people illegally buying some gasoline from a criminal so they can do their shopping with their car.

    Fuel will only be available for the EU apparachiks and their corrupt handlers.

    The next step is food.

    And while we’re making polite discussions with warmists, even making nice bets, the net is closing.

    The criminals in the EU have all their measures in place and they are ready to role, Don’t expect anything from local and national politicians.
    They are obligated by the Lisbon treaty to execute the EU decrees or face fines and cuts in subsidies. Of course the EU will wait for the moment they have the consent for European taxation which will make them independent from the national members for their budgets but their mind has been made up. And if any of you will protest and start a really big demonstration they simply send in a few battalions of Chinese or South Korean military to kick our ass.

    The EU crook including Interpol officials all have total immunity so you can’t sue and from January of this year we have no longer control over our own tax money.
    Take a visit at

    You will find there a story about the European GPS project which is going to cost us an arm and a leg and the permanent fraud within the ETS (Emission Trade System) that is booked on the account of the taxpayers and consumes billions of euro’s.

    And this is all on top of the bail outs that are going to cost our necks.

    Every crises is an opportunity for the EU to make a power grab.

    There are voices of opposition, very loud and clear voices.
    But that will not stop them.

    1. DirkH

      Fascinating document, Ron, thanks. With a great Freudian slip on p. 6:
      “In which EU and other Organised Crime (OC) groups see energy as a safe long term investment, play the markets for short-term opportunities, profit from price/tax differences and voluntary changes in consumer lifestyles, and use the energy sector to progress further towards respectability.”

      “EU and other Organised Crime (OC) groups”… now that’s the most honest assessment of our Politbüro i ever found from an international police organisation!


    Dirk H

    You said
    “I have the opinion that it will go LOWER than the 1945-1977, much lower. It will take decades, though. The reason is the quiet sun. 1945-1977 had the highly active sun of the 20th century. We don’t have that anymore. It’s the big game changer. ”

    You could be right. Scientists have been unable to clearly quantify the solar impact or accurately predict the cycles.Many of the 31 authors that I referred to in a previous post say the same thing as you do. The one thing that is different currently as opposed to the pre 1976 era is the ocean heat content. It would take cosiderable time to cool the planet down to the levels that you suggest. Isolated winters and years could still be very cold . We just hit -43.8C in Ontario, Canada which has happened before but still, it is quite cold

  12. Stephen Wilde

    This is what is going on:

    “How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”

    The process described also accounts for a solar induced skewing of the PDO and other ocean cycles in favour of net warming or net cooling and also brings in the observed changes in trend of jetstream positioning, global cloudiness and albedo changes.

    1. DirkH

      Spot on, Stephen, inactive sun == less energy into the oceans, exactly.



    Very interesting article . One of the things that puzzles me is that Solar Cycle # 19 which was the most active sun cycle [with 201 sunspot number late 1957] in the last 130 years and lasted from about 1954 to 1964. Yet there was no spike in global emperature anomalies and they were actually quite flat. A cool period was happening actually from 1944 to 1976 How come ? Is there a significant lag period here from the sun to oceans to atmosphere? Does your theory explain this?

    1. Stephen Wilde

      Yes MATTI I think it does.

      I made reference to the top down solar effect as being only half the equation. Additionally one needs to factor in a bottom up oceanic effect.

      Thus the effects of powerful solar cycles 18 and 19 were offset by the negative PDO of the time.

      It was when the positive PDO came along to supplement the solar effect that we saw the most rapid warming but even that seems not to have exceeded the warming rate during the positive PDO of the early 20th century.

      The precise timing and relative strengths of the interactions between the top down solar and bottom up oceanic effects needs still to be determined but I think I have the overall mechanisms right.

  14. Dana

    By the way, has anyone noticed the difference between Easterbrook’s and the IPCC’s projections for 2010 in Figure 2? Easterbrook predicted that we should already have seen some significant cooling, with an anomaly of around 0.3°C, whereas the IPCC is closer to 0.6°C (I wonder which IPCC projection scenario Easterbrook is plotting in this figure). So far the IPCC projections are much closer to reality.

  15. Mas

    A little long-term historical perspective ;-)

    ‘There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.

    The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.’

    1. Dana

      I wish people would stop referencing geocraft. It’s such a garbage site.

      The ice age mentioned came immediately after a rapid drop in atmospheric CO2. Sure it was still at 4,000 ppm (maybe – some records show it much lower), but according to the same CO2 records, it was at over 7,000 ppm before the ice age.

      Besides which, CO2 is not the only factor which impacts global temperatures. Nobody has claimed otherwise.

      1. DirkH

        Dana, don’t forget the influence of CO2 is logarithmic; so while 7000 and 4000 are big numbers, it’s less than a factor of 2 difference. So even in the topsy turvy world of warmist science, you’re splitting hairs.

        1. Dana

          Again, I’m quite aware of the logarithmic relationship. A factor of 2 change is in the ballpark of a 3°C change, with the difference between a warm period and ice age being only about 5°C.


    Dirk H

    You said
    “It is in no way different from earlier La Ninas.” referring to La Nina’s. I think this La Nina is somewhat different particularly regionally.
    If you listen closely to Joe Bastardi’s 8 minute tape noted by Pierre at the front of this track , you will find that Joe describes how this La Nina is different. US southeast is typically cold under the La Nina . The opposite is happening this time . Also the jet stream along North American west coast has changed. Under typical La Nina conditions , polar jet stream splits into two paths , one going further north to Alaska and then comes south across the Canadian western and Prairie provinces bringing all the cold air to the western provinces and the US northern central states . The other lower branch of the jet stream brings extra rain and snow across to the states of Washington and Oregon and then to the northern US states close to the Canadian border where some flooding is happening. This time most of the weather is coming straight across from the Pacific with what is called the “pineapple express” coming straight from Hawaii bringing rain to California and US northwest . Also UK typically has more normal or warmer winters since 1975 during Na Nina winters. Only 2 [namely 1985 and 1996 ] or 2 out of the 9 were cooler . Not so this time with the cold December although January is about normal so far . I agree that it does bring global temperatures down quite rapidly as the PDO went cool again.


    Correction to my last post. I said
    “US southeast is typically cold under the La Nina . ”
    I meant to say the opposite. US southeast is typically warm under a LA Nina and a cold PDO.



    You said
    “Easterbrook predicted that we should already have seen some significant cooling, with an anomaly of around 0.3°C, whereas the IPCC is closer to 0.6°C”

    I don’t know which data set Professor Easterbrook uses but the
    hadcrutgl3 Global temperature anomaly for December 2010 was 0.251C

    1. Dana

      Cherrypicking alert. The average anomaly for HadCRUT in 2010 was around 0.5°C.

      1. DirkH

        The average anomaly for 2010 was inflated by an El Nino; you don’t want an El Nino year’s average to count as representative, Dana, do you? Because if we skeptics mention 1998 you warmists will immediately jump on us, pointing out rightly that that was an El Nino year. What’s good for the goose is good for the ganter.

        1. Dana

          1998 was the strongest El Nino in a century. 2010 only had a moderately strong El Nino, followed by a moderately strong La Nina.

          But I don’t mind removing the El Nino signal, along with other short-term natural effects like volcanic eruptions and the 11-year solar cycle. If we do, 2010 is the hottest year on record, *especially* in RSS and UAH.

  19. intrepid_wanders

    23. Januar 2011 at 20:55 says:
    “So far the IPCC projections are much closer to reality.”

    Please, Dana, provide this reality…we are looking for a rate change that will accommodate >6degC by 2100 if western civilization does nothing to stop this “madness”. So far, we are looking at the rate change *if* will all drank the kool-aid and stopped all our evil emissions.

    1. Dana
  20. Edwin Adlerman

    Your evidence for cooling are some unreferenced graphs from a Heartland Institute Conference? Seriously, LOL?!!

    Since Professor Easterbrook hasn’t published anything in 6 years, when is he going to write these stunning findings up and submit them to a peer-reviewed journal?

  21. Edwin Adlerman

    Also note that part of this above referenced presentation by Prof. Easterbrook has been shown to be FRAUDLENT!:

    1. DirkH

      Thanks; i will now have less scruples to accuse warmists and wamist scientists of fraud and falsification – this rethoric seems to be SOP on warmist blogs.

      Reading your links, i scratch my head and ask, what has Easterbrook done wrong? Looks like he has taken the mean curve from that wikipedia graphic without distorting or changing it and presented it. How that is fraud i can’t tell. I guess it’s fraud because the warmists don’t like it.

      1. DirkH

        Oh, now i see where you see fraud. you accuse Easterbrook of NOT mixing the thermometer record with multi-centennial temperature reconstructions; IOW you accuse him of NOT doing a Michael Mann-like Hockey stick homunculus graph.
        (see the data source descriptions here:
        Quite a bit of post-normal logic here… You *really* don’t like science as it used to be done, right? ;-)

        1. Dana

          First of all, taking somebody else’s graph, modifying it slight, and passing it off as your own is effectively plagiarism.

          Secondly, Easterbook claims the “present day temperature” is about 0.7°C colder than the actual present day temperature. Unless Easterbrook is living in the year 1900, that’s kind of stupid.

          1. DirkH

            Splicing together two different data sources with wildly different power spectra can only be described as unscientific. At least, one would have to calibrate and probably filter one of them, and justify the splicing.

            Also, “Global Warming Art” have not invented this data series; and furthermore, they probably publish it under a “Digital commons” licence which would invalidate your plagiarism claim even concerning typefaces and other decoration.

  22. R. de Haan

    Edwin Adlerman
    24. Januar 2011 at 05:04 | Permalink | Reply
    Also note that part of this above referenced presentation by Prof. Easterbrook has been shown to be FRAUDLENT!:

    Says who?

  23. Edwin Adlerman

    Huh? The links are from the same talk referenced above (look at the link). It doesn’t take a genius to see that lifting a graph from Wikipedia, falsely altering the reference line to back up one’s position, then presenting such graph as one’s own, constitutes scientific fraud!

  24. salvatore del prete

    As far as I am concerned the man made global warming theory is DEAD, because they have got the atmospheric circulation wrong. All of their models predicted the atmosphere as a result of man made global warming increasing the co2 in the stratosphere , would cause the startoshpere to cool, and cool more in the higher latitudes, which would then result in an ever increasing + Arctic Oscillation, while the reality is an ever increasing negative Arctic Oscillation has been evolving ,over the past 2 or 3 years. The exact opposite!!!

    Not to mention the upper troposhere hot spot ,over the equatorial regions of the earth, which was suppose to occur as a result of positive feedbacks from the increase in co2.


    In contrast to the global warmers, I with others, have forecasted an increasingly negative AO going forward ,due to low solar activity,and high latitude volcanic activity. I have emails to back up when I said it, and what I said. That is why I love emails ,you can’t spin your way out of something, which is what the man made global warming ,pathetic community is trying to do.



    There is nothing wrong with showing the latest global temperature anomaly [December 2010] to illustrate the latest cooling taking place which is what Professor Easterbrook.’s message was –expect cooling . All data sets show global temperature anomalies dropping in 2010. None show an anomaly currently around 0.6 C .You also cherry picked your period to make your numbers , so don’t be so quick to fault others when you are doing the same.

    1. Dana

      Matti I didn’t cherrypick anything. I estimated the annual anomaly in HadCRUT (nothing formal, I just eyeballed it). Looking at any single month, no matter which month, is by definition cherrypicking. Of course temperatures are dropping – we’re in a La Nina cycle now. What you’re suggesting is that this La Nina cycle is going to last for another 20 years. Either that, or you’re cherrypicking. Either way you’re wrong.


    Salvatore del prete

    You said
    “I with others, have forecasted an increasingly negative AO going forward ,due to low solar activity,and high latitude volcanic activity. ”

    I agree with you completely.
    I too track the winter AO [ average of DEC/JAN/FEB combined ]. The winter AO in winter of 2009/2010 was -3.442, the lowest since 1950. The 2010/2011 winter AO could be equally low . Certainly December’s was close to -4 to -5 and posibly a new low. I have found that if the winter anomaly is very low , often cooler weather extends right to spring and even later.[ possible cooler entire 2011 year also?] The year 2010 I believe was in negative AO all year [ first time since 1950?] and this probably was a warning for what would happen in the very cold December and this is what some of the forecasters may have missed. The article above pointed out the significant presence of the negative AO in past cool periods when I said,

    “An analysis winter temperatures for Central England’s last cold period of 1962 -1987 shows that 20 of 26 years were below the winter normal of about 4.8°C. Of these 20 years, negative winter AOs were present 90% of the time [18 years]“

  27. salvatore del prete

    Matti, but what gets me, is despite the fact, they are dead wrong on the atmospheric circulation, they are now trying to spin and spin things ,to try justify what we have now,is STILL due to man made global warming ,when infact what we have now, is the EXACT OPPOSITE , of what global man made warming crowd was predicting.

    They are the biggest BS artist, I have ever come across.

  28. salvatore del prete

    One last observation is, I believe the causes for climate change, are the phasing in of the natural items, I have listed below.

    Those items being mainly,solar activity,volcanic activity,SOI oscillation, AO /NAO oscillation, PDO/AMO oscillations.

    Also, I want to mention, one potential wicked positive feedback for global cooling,which is, a more meridional circulation , could result in more N.H. snow cover ,which could in turn, increase the albedo of the earth ,which would in turn ,cause even a further cooling.

    Now how is weak solar activity ,correlated to an increase in geological activity?

    This is how. Read below.

    Take a car going 80 (active sun) increase speed to 90 m.p.h (active sun),one will feel a small jolt. On the other hand ,take a car going 1 m.p.h (quiet sun) increase that car suddenly to 20 m.p.h (still quiet sun ,but with some activity) then back it down to 1 m.p.h, the jolts one would feel ,would be much greater ,because the magnitude of the car increase would be 20x greater then the 1 m.p.h speed ,to begin with, followed by 20x less speed.

    I believe, as Piers Corbyn does, that, that analogy, can be applied to the earth- sun /geological activity.

    Getting back to the phase in theory. I have never seen more potential, for the natural items I mentioned above, to not only phase into a colder mode, but phase in ,with a degree of magnitude and length of time, that has the potential , if it should come to fruition,to cause a much more substancial drop in temperatures for this decade, then even Dr. Easterbrook, is predicting.

    I also believe ,if natural items effecting the climate phase in a particular mode, to a degree of magnitude strong enough, and a length of time long enough, that climatic tipping points can be acheived.



    You said “What you’re suggesting is that this La Nina cycle is going to last for another 20 years. ” No, I am not suggesting that this La NINA is going to last 20 years . What I think may happen is that this La Nina may last several years like the post 1998 La Ninas which went on for 3-4 years and that over the next 10-30 years the frequency of La Ninas may increase as in other cooler periods . Already we have had two in only 4 years while in the recent warmer period 1989 2007 there were 2 in about 18 years .


    Salvatore del prete

    You said “they are now trying to spin and spin things ,to try justify what we have now,is STILL due to man made global warming ”

    Yes, the spin is still on . Personally I think they are losing credibilty with the public very fast now by wrongly correlating every natural weather event if even slightly bigger than the last one as being caused by man-made global warming without offering any evidence . Natural climate cycles do not remain constant and their amplitude and frequency can vary considerably from decade to decade and century to century. and even longer periods . The Australian floods are the latest example . Even the Australian government does not buy the false spin of these being caused by manmade greenhouse gases.

  31. Edwin Adlerman


    Nonsense! A climate model could be entirely 100% incorrect on day-to-day weather, and be 100% correct in terms of climate. You don’t seem to understand the basics behind your claim.

  32. salvatore del prete

    Edwin, you don’t know what I am talking about.

    I said the man made global warming models, have predicted wrongly, what kind of atmospheric circulation would result in the atmosphere, due to man made global warming.

    If you would think before you write ,you would have known it was in reference to climate, NOT the day to day weather forecasting.

    If you also would have done your research ,you would have known ,that without exception, every single PATHETIC , global man made warming model, predicted the atmosphere over time ,due to man made global warming, would evolve into an ever increasing +AO, and +NAO .

    Edwin my boy ,the exact opposite has been happening ,now going on for 3 years!!!!

    To take it further I and others ,predicted if solar activity would remain low, and we had an increase in high latitude volcanic activity ,that the atmosphere would evolve into an ever increasing -AO and -NAO, which is exactly what has been happening.

    I have emails to back up what I said ,when I said it.

    A positve AO ,versus a negative AO ,will cause the climate to evolve in a completly different manner. A positive AO, will result in the N.H. warming ,because Arctic air will be locked up near the pole,while in contrast what we have now, a negative AO ,will cause the N.H. to cool ,because Arctic air masses can move more south and invade the lower latitudes.
    In addtion this -AO circulation or meridional circulation, will probably result in an increase in cloud cover and snow cover in the lower latitudes, which would enhance earth’s albedo, and further the cooling.

    Edwin ,here is your last lessen in climate 101, to have a cold N.H. ,one has to have a warm Arctic ,in contrast to latitudes south of the Arctic. That is how it works, and the global warmers have it completely backwords and don’t know what they are talking about.

    Anything that will serve to warm the high latitudes /Arctic ,in contrast to the mid latitudes will promote, a neg. AO atm. circulation, and this in turn will promote global cooling, which is what is happening as we speak.

    You are the one that does not understand the basics behind my claim.

    This will be my one and only response to this nonsense. If you don’t like it ,so be it, I know exactly what I am talking about.

  33. Edwin Adlerman

    So Salvatore, why do you think the “atmospheric circulation” is divorced from day-to-day weather? You did put in ALL CAPITALS!

    >I said the man made global warming models, have predicted wrongly, what >kind of atmospheric circulation would result in the atmosphere, due to man >
    >made global warming.

    First of all what is a “man made global warming model”? Please be more specific… that a global circulation model, a cloud-resolving model, a 2-d model??? Which model? Exactly where has the “wrongness” of the atmospheric circulation models been published in detail?

    >You are the one that does not understand the basics behind my claim.

    Maybe because your writing is borderline incoherent and schizophrenic, and laced with lots of fantastical claims backed only by your “emails” Give me a break. Show me the evidence of how our models have got “the atmospheric circulation” wrong, but, are (incredibly!) able to forecast the weather. After all, climate models are using the same fundamental equations as cloud-resolving models.

  34. Edwin Adlerman

    Also Salvatore:
    >All of their models predicted the atmosphere as a result of man made global >warming increasing the co2 in the stratosphere , would cause the startoshpere to >cool,

    And the stratosphere *is* cooling:

    What is your point?

  35. Edwin Adlerman

    >Also, “Global Warming Art” have not invented this data series; and furthermore, >they probably publish it under a “Digital commons” licence which would >invalidate your plagiarism claim even concerning typefaces and other decoration.

    First of all, altering the data is fraud. Period. Someone who is a retired Professor knows that.
    Second, he also would know you can’t steal an image and pass it off as your own. The usage of that original graph is only allowed to be used if:

    “This image may be used freely in any academic work where the author(s) do not receive a fee for their efforts and/or in any non-commercial work, provided that in either case these conditions are met:
    You acknowledge the author of this image and Global Warming Art alongside the image. The recommended format is “Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art”, but this may be varied to conform with a publication’s style.
    If and where practical, you also include a link and/or reference to this specific description page:
    Such references may appear either alongside the image, or in a separate section where other source material is acknowledged.”

    So, Professor Easterbrook is guilty of both scientific fraud and plagiarism. End of story


    To me the depth of research and the value of the the information that Professor Easterbrook presents far exceeds any minor notation that he may have neglected to make . I would rather debate the man’s science and message rather than any missed minor notation if any. Certain bloggers seem to come on just to throw rocks at other bloggers rather than debate the blog message or science presented

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Easterbrook has some very fundamental errors in his work. His presentation on WUWT regarding GISP2 is a prime example. He doesn’t take the time to look at essential elements of the data and current research. GISP2 is a local record of temperature (stated clearly by Dr Alley in several papers and interviews) but Easterbrook continues to present it at a global proxy. He presents rapid climate change events in the GISP2 record but totally ignores D-O and Bonds events. He also completely ignores obliquity as the well known driver of NH cooling over the past ~8000 years (Miller 2010).

      If you take the time to read Alley 2010 you can also see that NH Holocene cooling seen in GISP2 is offset by warming in the Byrd ice core data in the SH.

      Anyone who publishes an article that claims any definitive answer to such a complex question as climate change is yanking your chain.

      1. DirkH

        Rob, i’m disappointed. You read WUWT?

        1. Rob Honeycutt

          I read both sides of the issue. Hey, I’m here at NTZ, aren’t I?

  37. salvatore del prete

    ATTENTION: The website will have an article coming out soon ,talking about how all the global warming man made models, have forecasted the atmospheric circulation wrong as a result of global man made warming. Joe D’ Aleo, will be doing this article, and it will echo, what I have said on this site.

    Edwin ,what matters is the contrast in temperatures in the stratosphere between the high latitudes and lower latitudes, not so much ,if it is cooling as a whole, or warming. It is the contrast in temperatures, that matters much more.

    Edwin, the fact that you are trying to indicate stratospheric cooling ,plays right into what I am saying. They were expecting a ,+AO, due to stratospheric cooling,due to an increase in CO2 concentrations,caused by man. So thanks for the confirmation.

    The fact is ,the global warming crowd based on the stratospheric cooling, said the atmospheric circ. would evolve over time into an ever increasing +AO circulation , and I and others said over time ,due to low solar activity and high latitude volcanic activity, the atmospheric circulation would evolve into an ever increasing -AO overtime, and that is exactly what has been taking place over the last few years. Those are the facts, you can scream and kick and cry all you want, but those are the facts.

    Edwin, I challenge you to post one prediction made by a man made global warming person ,or model , that predicted , prior to year, let’s take 2007, a negative AO oscillation ,would be the dominate atmospheric circulation going forward. You will not be able to produce it, because they all predicted the opposite. It is your job ,to show otherwise, not mine.

    Look for Joe D’ Aleo’s article, on this subject,on the website, it should be out in a month or less. I hope it will clear up this matter for you further.

    Take care and good luck in you climate endeavors. I have nothing against you, and if you still don’t agree that is fine. Have a nice day.

  38. salvatore del prete

    Edwin, I did not word it clearly. I should have said ,the models that people use to that predicted global warming, due to man made influences, have not forecasted the atmospheric circulation correctly.

    Edwin, you can’t have global warming, if you don’t have a +AO dominate atm circulation.

    I think that covers it. Time will further tell ,who is right,and who is wrong. Good luck.

  39. salvatore del prete

    One more time. The models that people use, to predict global warming ,due to man made influences, have not forecasted the atmospheric circulation correctly.


    Rob Honeycutt

    If I remember previous web blogs corrrectly , Dr Alley is the same scientist who claimed that the true worst case from doubled carbon dioxide is closer to 18 or 20 degrees of warming, and cause an addition of heat so radical that it would render the planet unrecognizable to its present-day inhabitants, then I am sorry but my vote goes for the science of Dr Easterbrook. Sorry Rob your argument does not make sense to me .

  41. salvatore del prete

    Matti, you are so correct, and if anything he may be to conservative. We have to see how things phase in, and to what degree of magnitude, and length of time the phasing takes place over.

    MAS, your commentary about CO2 concentrations versus certain geological time periods is spot on. During the Ordovician Period some 400 million years ago , earth had CO2 concentrations of 4000ppm, and yet earth had an ice age!

    The global warmers are in denial of past history, they are in denial that now their models are not 50% off,not 75 % off ,but 100% off. Their models could not be more wrong. It is like saying someone is walking North, and the person is walking South. That is how off they are.

    As , I said earlier the global man made theory is dead.

    My prediction for year 2011, will be for temperatures to be between normal and -.2 c for the year.

    I am not afraid to make a prediction, and unlike the global warmers there is no SPIN, involved. If I am wrong ,I will admit to being wrong.

    However, I have never ever been more confident, that I am correct,and this decade will be the decade of global cooling, the only question remaining is, how much cooling.

    The AO oscillation needs to be monitored ,and we have to see if the correlation to solar activity continues. I think it will, and if the sun should have a burst of energy from time to time against an otherwise quiet back ground , lookout for increased geological activity ,during those times.

    If one is interested, if one goes back to year 1600 ,and plots all major volcanic eruptions from then to now ,with an explosive index of 5 or higher, one will find 85% of them ,are associated with sunspot minimum activity. That is a very strong correlation.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Salvatore… If the climate models were 100% wrong then the past 30 years would have seen cooling, not warming.

  42. Rob Honeycutt

    Salvatore said… “During the Ordovician Period some 400 million years ago , earth had CO2 concentrations of 4000ppm, and yet earth had an ice age!”

    Have you done any research at all on this event? You will see that it was the 4000ppm of CO2 that brought us OUT of the deep ice age. That is why you get carbonate layers in the record. CO2 builds up, the ice melts and then the CO2 is rapidly weathered out of the atmosphere.

  43. Wrangler Wayne

    You may be right about the 4000 ppm CO2 bringing us out of the ice age. However, at that level of CO2, no one was around to dispute it. I thought CO2s warming effect on the atmosphere flat lined out at about 200-400 ppm. That would explain why we have not seen any recent warming other than Little Ice Age rebound in temperatures for the last century (not counting misplaced urban temperature gages, El Ninos, Nuclear detonations, volcanoes, mid ocean rifts, East Africa land rifts, satellite altimeter calibration gages on the wobbly docks in NW Tasmania, falsified temperatures from East Anglia, a slowing in the Meridional Overturning Circulation, the Landscheidt minimum, falling solar gauss, and increased Cosmic rays and clouds). Yes, shorter days too. In 1950 the day count was + 3 msec, in 2010 it was only 0.8 msec. So, the oceans have shrunk and the earth now spins faster.

  44. salvatore del prete

    You are wrong, the CO2,followed the temperature, it did not lead the temp. out of the Ordovician Ice Age.
    So ROB , you should do some research.

    Rob, here is your answer to your other remark. The climate models have consistently forecasted only one type of weather pattern for the N.H., which is a positive AO. Do you understand that ,so far.

    Now during the past 30 years that was to be expected because all factors that control the climate,that being ,solar,volcanic activity,pdo/amo, soi oscillation ,ao/nao ,were in a warm mode, and therefore a positive AO was to be expected. So the models were right, just by chance. I predicted a positive AO , back then ,but things have changed Rob, all the factors that were in a warm mode for the last 30 years have now switched to a cold mode ,and therefore the AO has gone into a negative mode. The pathetic models however ,only can think one way ,which is an increase in co2 by man(lol) will cause the stratosphere to cool and the AO index to evolve into an ever increasing positve AO. The models are GARBAGE, because they are fed garbage in, and the result is, they give garbage out.

    The models take into account NO external factors, when trying to make future climate predictions, therefore they are useles, because nomatter what the situation will call for ,they will give only one result, which will be an ever increasing +AO index. So they suck ,in a word, as do all the poeple behind the man made global warming scam.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Savatore… I suggest you watch this lecture by Dr Alley. He does a good job of explaining exactly this topic:

      “You are wrong, the CO2,followed the temperature, it did not lead the temp. out of the Ordovician Ice Age.”

      That is not correct. You’re confusing glaical-interglacial cycles with snowball Earth events.

      Salvatore, I very much have done quite a lot of research on this topic.

      I would refer you to Royer 2006, Young 2009, and Young 2010 for further reading.

      1. Rob Honeycutt

        Just double checking myself… The late Ordovician glaciation was not a snowball Earth event. But it was a short glaciation lasting about half a million years whereas the data for that time period is very course, in the 10 million year increment range, so it is utterly impossible for you to suggest that CO2 followed temperature.

      2. DirkH
        1. Rob Honeycutt

          Dirk… Do you understand what Alley is talking about in terms of distribution curves? He has another lecture on “taming the long tail of the distribution” that is all about what he is discussing in the article you link to.

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      One more paper for you to read… Crowley 1995 – Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very high (14X) CO2 levels

  45. salvatore del prete

    ROB, make your prediction for the year and the decade.

    I said year 2011 will be between normal and -.2c and this will be the decade of global cooling. I don’t spin, and I love email because, it saves what you said and when you said it.

    Why don’t you make your prediction, then we can see who is right, and who is wrong.

    Nothing personel, but you global warmers just can’t see, or look at the data and the facts. The global man made warming theory is dead ,because they could not predict the atmospheric circulation correctly ,and if you can’t predict that ,you can’t predict the climate.

    My company is just getting started on informing the public about these facts.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Salvatore… In case you missed it, I put up a $5000 bet saying the coming decade would be warmer than the last one. The bet is running on this very blog!

      I’m not going to bet on the weather next year because that is not climate. Climate science is not about predicting weather. It’s about predicting weather trends over long periods of time.

  46. salvatore del prete

    Rob , I will save this , and we will see who is right and who is wrong. I am glad you made a prediction. You are correct, climate science is about predicting long term trends, and that trend will be lower temperatures as time goes by,this decade.

    Rob , I suggest you read what Piers Corbyn has to say about matters, as well as Dr. David Archibald ,of Australia,to name a few. .

    CO2 has never,ever led temperatures,and it never will. Your arguments are FALSE. I am not confusing glacial versus interglacial. Your side always resorts to spin, that is why you have no standing. I have read what your side has had to say about things many times, it is nothing but spin.

    In closing if one cannot predict the atmospheric circulation correctly ,on cannot predict the climate correctly. Of course, you won’t even admit to this, and this is as black and white as it gets.

    Joe D’Aleo, will be doing a piece on this ,on the icecap website ,in the near future, to expose further ,the fact that the models have gotton the atmospheric circulation completly wrong.

    I am printing your prediction out , and we will see who is right and who is wrong.

    Good luck in your climate research.

  47. Rob Honeycutt

    Salvatore said… “CO2 has never,ever led temperatures,and it never will.”

    250 million years ago. Siberian Traps. 90% of sea life went extinct. 70% of land based life also went extinct.

    In the more recent past (1M years), you are right. Co2 lags temp. That has been well understood for a very long time. You have to have a driver for temperature change, but without CO2 the forcings can only account for about 1C of the 5-8C of temperature change in the glacial-interglacial cycles. CO2 is naturally a feedback. But the radiative properties of atmospheric CO2 are well understood. When WE add CO2 to the atmosphere we change from a feedback to a forcing. Then CO2 leads temp.

    Again, this is all very well understood stuff. Not even Spencer or Lindzen question any of this. It’s basic physics. If I were you guys I’d at least stick with these guys and argue climate sensitivity based on cloud effects. That is the only place you have room for a rational argument.

  48. Stephen Wilde

    Rob Honeycutt said:

    “CO2 is naturally a feedback. But the radiative properties of atmospheric CO2 are well understood. When WE add CO2 to the atmosphere we change from a feedback to a forcing. Then CO2 leads temp.”

    Well, no.

    Increasing CO2 is a feedback from increased warmth. The entire biosphere is energised because oceanic absorption declines to increase CO2 in the air.

    We are a part of the biosphere so our numbers and the sophistication of our civilisations increase when it gets warmer. Our increased CO2 output is no different in effect to that from the farts and belches of the dinosaurs.

    The mere fact that WE as part of the biosphere produce more CO2 doesn’t change CO2 from a feedback to a forcing.

    None of that is to deny that CO2 does have thermal characteristics that seek to delay solar energy loss back to space. However there are lots of other negating factors such as clouds, the water cycle and the biosphere locking away the carbon in limestone and fossil deposits which have forever and will forever prevent CO2 in the air from ever significantly affecting natural climate variability from solar and oceanic influences.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Steve… I’m sorry but the research does not support what you are saying. If we were introducing CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate that the natural system could readily absorb there would be no problem. Then CO2 would remain a feedback. But what is happening is that we have overwhelmed natural systems. That is why CO2 concentrations are rising (re: Keeling curve).

      It’s not a matter of the source of the CO2 it’s a matter of the effect. The Siberian Traps turned CO2 into a forcing because the rate CO2 was being released into the atmosphere overwhelmed the natural system.

      You are right, there ARE other cooling effects as well. Those are known but have a lot of uncertainty involved. The latest research shows that cloud effects may have either zero or a positive feedback rather than a negative feedback (Dessler 2010). So, I would start counting those chickens just yet.

      Go look at chap 2 of the IPCC AR4 WG1. You will see the error bars around cloud effects, so those are well accounted for even with their high uncertainty.

      1. DirkH

        Dessler was wrong before.
        “The IPCC reports are widely regarded as the authoritative statements of scientific knowledge about climate change, and as such they carry enormous weight in both the scientific and policy communities. The immense credibility of the IPCC’s reports arises from the credible process that produces it. The reports are based on the peer-reviewed literature and are written by hundreds of expert climate scientists from over 100 countries. The reports then go through multiple layers of review, including expert peer review by thousands of climate scientists who were not authors of the report.”

        Will he be right this time?

        1. Rob Honeycutt

          Nothing inaccurate in that statement.

          Also, have you read Dessler 2010?

  49. salvatore del prete

    Steve, is exactly correct. Thanks.

    ROB, here is the bottomline. Unless you get the atmospheric circulation to evolve back into a consistent +AO , your prediction ,along with all the other global warmers ,will be going up in smoke.

    Further, I predicted ,with some others a long time ago, that if solar activity were to remain low,and volcanic activity high ,(and volcanic activity is a consequence of low solar activity) that the atmospheric circulation would evolve into a -AO.

    Since it is very likely going forward that solar activity will be weak for many years to come, the chances of you getting the consistent +AO circulation that you need in order to have your prediction be correct, are slim at best.

    Without a consistent +AO you will not obtain global warming. Good Luck.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Salvatore… You sound pretty confident about your AO information. But I haven’t seen your name on the bet yet? So, what’up? You should be getting in on this deal.

  50. salvatore del prete

    What bet list? I have no idea what you are talking about.Take Care

    1. Rob Honeycutt
  51. Mas

    Meanwhile back on Planet Earth …

    “NEW YORK (AP) — Schools closed, governments sent workers home early and planes were grounded Wednesday in an all-too-familiar routine along the East Coast as another snowstorm swept over a region already beaten down by a winter not even half over. “I fell three times trying to get off the steps,” commuter Elliott Self said after leaving an elevated train in Philadelphia. “I just want the snow to stop. I want the sun again. I want to feel just a little bit of warmth.”

    Millions of people got that oh-no-not-again feeling as the wet and sloppy storm engulfed the Northeast, where snowbanks in some places were already so high that drivers couldn’t see around corners. In Washington, D.C., hundreds of thousands of customers lost electricity, as heavy snow toppled power lines.
    Classes were called off and commutes were snarled from Tennessee to New England as cars and buses slipped and slid on highways. The New York area’s three major airports, among the nation’s busiest, saw more than 1,000 flights canceled. Pedestrians struggled across icy patches that were on their way to becoming deep drifts.

    In Pennsylvania, residents hunkered down as a one-two punch of a winter storm brought snow, sleet, freezing rain and then more snow, ….
    (Read more at the above link.)



    You are quite rightly pointing out the drastic change in US winter temperatures. They have cooled about 6 degrees F since 1998 as shown below. They could go down another 3-4 degrees over the next decade similarto the late 1970′s when it went down to about 27 degrees F. There are regions of US which border Canada, where the change is even greater. Similar cooling took place in the Canadian Prairies between 2006 and 2009 where the winters cooled some 7.1 degree C. We are expecting temperatures to again hit -40 to -45 C this coming week in Ontario[like last week ]

    Contiguous USwinter temperatures
    2010 31.16 F
    2009 33.70
    2008 33.31
    2007 33.90
    2006 36.11
    2005 35.91
    2004 33.61
    2003 34.20
    2002 36.35
    2001 31.69
    2000 37.17
    1999 37.02
    1998 36.69

    When I hear AGW supporting climate scientists say that there is no evidence to support that the planet is cooling or will cool in the future, I often wonder if they even live on the same planet.

    think US is laready


    Further to my previous post here is a table showing the winter cooling in the East North Central part of US

    2010 16.8 F
    2009 14.3
    2008 15.7
    2007 20.1
    2006 22.2
    2005 20.1
    2004 19.1
    2003 18.1
    2002 26.1
    2001 14.5
    2000 22.4
    1999 22.1
    1998 26.2

    EAST NORTH CENTRAL region of US is just south of CANADA and west of the Great Lakes. The temperatures are in Fahrenheit. There has been a 10 to 12 degrees F cooling already and the cool cycle is just getting underway. In the late 1970’s it went down to about 9 degrees F or about 7.8 F degrees further colder than now. That is why there was all the flooding in the Red River Valley and the Fargo area in recent years after a fast spring melt and the pattern could set up again this year if there is an early spring melt. [A lot of ice accumulates] As the planet cools the inland areas cool more first as the moderating effect of the oceans is less. As the oceans cool too [as they are now], the coastal areas will start to cool too[ Eastern US Coast and Western Europe ] but the inland areas will cool even more like is happening now in central US and Canada and Eastern Europe and parts of Asia .

  54. salvatore del prete

    Matti Vooro, it is like being in a movie theater,shouting fire and nobody will listen.

    As long as the atm. circulation remains mostly meridional, the N.H. will continue to cool this decade.

    The two main factors that will determine if the atmospheric circulation is going to remain meridional will be solar activity, and high latitude volcanic activity.

    That is the correct explanation of what is happening with our climate, and this is echoed by a few, such Piers Corbyn and Joe D’Aleo.


    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Translation: Any conclusion that doesn’t agree with what I want to hear is BS!

  55. Stephen Wilde

    Just a thought but wonder whether more meridional jets is a transition phase between zonal poleward jets (for strong warming) and zonal equatorward jets (for strong cooling).

    I suggest that because during the MWP both Greenland AND Europe were warmer and during the LIA both were colder.

    In contrast, with the current meridional jets, we generally see Greenland and Europe going in opposite directions depending on the positions of the jetstream loops.


    stephen wilde

    The jet stream pattern is different . It seems to go further south and even southeast in North America. Thus Canada and US are cold all over but AO is positive . Europe is warmer as La Nina patterns seem to give Europe milder or normal winters ?

    1. Stephen Wilde

      Possible. I don’t think we’ve yet seen enough real world situations to sort out all the available combinations. I’m aware of the La Nina/warm Europe link which is probably why we have shaken off the record cold of a few months ago.

      AO still goes a bit positive from time to time but we are in a general negative phase at present and no sign of going anywhere near the persistent positivity of the late 20th century.

      Ther’s a lot of chaotic variability in the system so one can only really get a grip by looking at multidecadal trends or longer.


    European [land +sea] winter temperature departures from the 1961-1990 base have been dropping the last three years also. I have estimated the 2010 winter anomaly.It is bound to be negative as UK 2010 winter temperature dropped by 1.57 C over 2009 .

    European Winter TEMPERATURE departures from 1961-1990 base
    1998 1.23 C
    1999 0.45
    2000 0.63
    2001 1.12
    2002 0.67
    2003 -0.06
    2004 0.65
    2005 0.60
    2006 0.12
    2007 1.54
    2008 1.34
    2009 0.52
    2010 -1.0 [EST]
    The 2010 estimate is mine. Data not available until April/May 2011

  58. CPT Wayne

    I thought the warming effects of CO2, being logarithmic, flat lines out at 100-200 ppm, after which there is negligible atmospheric warming. This would explain the NOAA/NCDC dataset graph shown at this site:

    The annual global temperature changes have been within normal variability despite the rising levels of atmospheric CO2. So, one can readily see that CO2 has had little impact on global temps. Unprecedented global warming has not occurred, and those claiming this are reading from a page of the book of scientific stupidity.

  59. Dan Pangburn

    From 2001 through Dec, 2010 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 21.8% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased significantly and the average of the five reporting agencies has been declining steeply since the peak of the last El Nino in about March 2010. The 21.8% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.


    The contribution of added atmospheric carbon dioxide is between small and insignificant. The time-integral of sunspot numbers (a proxy which correlates with the average altitude and thus average temperature of clouds) and effective sea surface temperature are the main contributors.

    A simple equation, with inputs of accepted measurements from government agencies, calculates the average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy (87.6% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). See the equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10 and 6/27/10).

    The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down.


    Further eveidence that global cooling is well underway .


    I first saw the picture on the CLIMATE REALISTS web page , but the original source is the Daily mail . It shows the northern half of the entire Northern Hemisphere covered in snow and ice . If one were to add the southern edge of the previous glacier boundary , it may have looked similar.

  62. The Climate is Changing Alright, But It’s Getting Cooler at US Action News

    [...] Signs Of Strengthening Global Cooling [...]

  63. Gail Combs

    DirkH @ 23. Januar 2011 at 02:22

    I have the opinion that it will go LOWER than the 1945-1977, much lower. It will take decades, though. The reason is the quiet sun. 1945-1977 had the highly active sun of the 20th century. We don’t have that anymore. It’s the big game changer…..
    What is interesting about the sun during the 1970′s is Dr. Svalgaard’s N/S solar polar magnetic field strengths ( Think Svensmark’s Cosmic Theory)

    Notice what happened in the 1970 decade compared to the other 9 decades in the Koppen Climate classification. The other cool decade was 1910. Solar cycle 14 (1902-1913) was weak
    And Solar Cycle 15 did not get off the ground floor until 1918