Russian Scientist: Expect Cooling – Pols Sitting On The Wrong Horse

In the German edition of Ria Novosti, Russian scientist Oleg Pokrovsky of the Main Geophysical Observatory says the world should expect cooling – and not warming – and that this will interfere with Russia’s plans to exploit the Arctic’s rich resources. The climate has been cooling since 1998.

At a climate research conference for the Arctic and Antarctic in St. Petersburg, Friday, Pokrovsky said the Earth’s temperature fluctuates in 60-year cycles.

There isn’t going to be an ice age, but temperatures will drop to levels last seen in the 1950s and 1960s.

Pokrovsky adds:

Right now all components of the climate system are entering a negative phase.  The cooling will reach it’s peak in 15 years. Politicians who have geared up for warming are sitting on the wrong horse.

The Northeast Passage will freeze over and will be passable only with icebreakers.

Pokrovsky also claims that the IPCC, which has prophesized global warming, has ignored many factors. He also noted that most American weather stations are located in cities where temperatures are always higher.

We don’t know everything that’s happening. The climate system is very complex and the IPCC is not the final truth on the matter.

UPDATE,  4/26/2010: Here’s the RIA NOVOSTI English version:

UPDATE 2: Dr Pokrovsky replies here:

20 responses to “Russian Scientist: Expect Cooling – Pols Sitting On The Wrong Horse”

  1. Arno Arrak

    You have to separate arctic warming from general warming because in our world the arctic has actually been warming while the globe as a whole has stood still. Arctic is special because at the turn of the twentieth century a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system began to direct warm tropical waters towards the Arctic Ocean. It is quite likely that the Gulf Stream’s northern extension between Iceland and Scandinavia is responsible for that. It keeps the Russian arctic ports ice free by having melted approximately a third of the arctic sea ice that otherwise would exist in its absence. But this warming was demonstrably not uniform, paused in mid-century, and then started up again in the seventies. Kaufman et al. last November showed that this arctic warming interrupted a two thousand year old period of cooling which they thought was caused by orbital variations. If you look at their temperature curve it looks like another hockey stick only this one is real, for other sources have reported the same twentieth century warming. While Kaufman himself wants to attribute it to carbon dioxide greenhouse effect this is completely impossible for two reasons. First, the warming itself is confined to the arctic, and second, we know that the partial pressure of carbon dioxide did not take a jump at the turn of the century as required by the laws of physics if it is the cause of warming. The mid-century pause in warming very likely was also caused by a rearrangement of currents and if there is another pause coming that will also be its likely cause. The Russians suspect that the warming reported is exaggerated by the UHIE and I would too if I wasn’t aware that arctic warming is decoupled from global warming, the one caused by our carbon footprints. I don’t know where the Russians get their temperature info but if they have been tracking ocean currents they may be on the right track. See “What Warming?” available on for more info on the Arctic.

  2. Chris the Icebear

    Great Comment, Arno!
    as we have been seen for the last years, HADCRUT3 and NASA GISS T divergence is becoming bigger. In global T about 0,3°C and most of that because of a few Arktic stations only

  3. Mervyn Sullivan

    I am inclined to accept the view of Russian scientist Oleg Pokrovsky of the Main Geophysical Observatory over that of IPCC Chairman, Dr Pachauri… liar, ‘crook’, ‘snake-oil salesman’… who claims his report is the “gold standard’ in climate science. Yet his report contains too many errors and misleading statements. Dr Pachauri has claimed the 2007 IPCC Report is based solely on peer reviewed scientific literature. Now we know that of the 18,531 citations to “peer reviewed literature”, 30% of the citations in fact do not relate to anything close to being peer reviewed literature. That makes the IPCC report a fraud, full of biased, politically driven and exaggerated claims, which governments of the world should discard before making the mistake of using this trashy report as a basis of making policies on catastrophic global warming, which has not been happened for the last 15 years.

    When are people going to wake up? Scam scam scam!

  4. R. de Haan

    Total nonsense!

    There is no evidence that CO2 is causing Global Warming let alone Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Temperatures are moderate compared to the different warmth periods we have identified in the past 2000 years and temperatures are moderate compared to the cold periods like the Maunder and Dalton Minimum.

    What plays a role however is the urban heat island effect and land use for agricultural purposes and irrigation, deforestation but these are local effects.

    This is still planet water, not planet earth!

    The entire mumbo jumbo about carbon footprints is nice if you plan to live in the next USSR our politicians are building on a Global Level so please dig into the facts and don’t let the scam artists in this world
    trick you!

    I agree 100% with our Russian scientists.

    The last period we had a negative PDO/AMO ruling, despite an active sun our scientific establishment, including the CIA, was convinced we were plunging into another ice age!

    This time we will see a negative PDO, AMO following suit within a few years and two very weak solar cycles!

    When the current El Ninjo will fase out we will see a donward step change in Global temperatures stabilized by an La Ninja.

    Under these conditions we only need a few volcanic eruptions to get into Dalton Minimum territory again or worst!

    Beside that, there is a statistical relevant link between Solar Minimum and tectonic/seismic and volcanic activity!

    The past two NH winters have been identifies as volcanic winters
    (Kasatochi, Mt. Reboubt a.o.) and thanks to blocking high’s and relative warm oceans thanks to El Ninjo lots of snow!

    The upcoming winter will show yet another Golobal Ice extend record
    and it will be very harsh again.

    Whatever the effect of CO2 is, the signal is completely suppressed by natural cycles.

    Read the articles from Joseph D’Aleo at and Joe Bastardi from AccuWeather who made perfect long term predictions for the past winters.

  5. Charles Higley

    It should be included in this discussion that, although people like to say that the Arctic has been warming, the evidence for this is lacking, particularly if you try to use the temperature records used by NOAA, GISS, etc.

    Reports from sites around the Arctic Rim report no warming. It should also not be ignored that influxes of warm water melt ice much more rapidly than the air.

    There is also good reason to expect that rising CO2 might cause a slight cooling effect as the CO2 displaces water vapor from the air, replacing a good heat-trapping gas with an inferior one (a la MIskolczi and Zagoni).

    In any case, CO2 is a trace gas and simply cannot do what they say unless the fabricated constants and assumptions of the IPCC are taken to be true by Mother Nature. I do not think that she can be influenced by political “scientists”.

  6. William Kurz

    About time– Here in the USA we’re overrun by climatekooks like Algore– A breath of fresh air is welcome, as we’re under attack by our own president on most issues. Hurry November, and especially ’12- God may be with us. WHK

  7. R. de Haan

    MUST READ: The Greenhouse Effect: Origins, Falsification, & Replacement by Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
    Sunday, April 25th 2010, 4:58 PM EDT
    Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
    This is a MAJOR paper that Hans Schreuder informed Alan Siddons about today

    A few choice plums:

    #Everyone knows what the greenhouse effect is. Well … do they? Ask someone to explain how the greenhouse effect works. There is an extremely high probability that they have no idea.

    #Beware of wheels within energy diagrams as these usually constitute the energy creation mechanism of perpetual motion machines. One such gem of clarity, used uncited by Plimer (2009, p. 370), was offered by Kiehl and Trenberth…

    #The mechanism by which the addition of carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere has no empirical basis. Therefore the assertion that global warming is anthropogenic, may well be philosophical and perhaps political, but it is most certainly not scientific.

    #Increasing visible radiation, even by quite a large amount, results in no measurable rise in temperature because no appreciable amount of visible radiation is converted into infrared when absorbed and re-emitted – contrary to Arrhenius’ hypothesis.

    #Tyndall’s confusion of absorption and opacity is a major error that was propagated into Arrhenius’ Greenhouse hypothesis, and constitutes a fact not accounted for in Arrhenius’ calculation of “Climate Sensitivity” to carbon dioxide.

    #Although the greenhouse effect died with the Wood experiment, the diverse multitude of radiation “budgets” shows that the greenhouse effect is far from buried. This is a classic case of shifting the goalposts, because the greenhouse effect is not a scientific hypothesis that can be buried when it dies from experimental causes; it is a political symbol that cannot be allowed a proper burial, and so remains forever on display at the funeral parlor; an eternal viewing just like Lenin’s.

    By the way, he’s an Aussie.

    Alan S

    Download the PDF here: Greenhouse Effect Origins Falsification Replacement by Timothy Casey3.pdf

  8. Leonard Weinstein

    Charles Higley,
    I agree that CAGW is wrong and AGW weak at most. I also agree that the Arctic temperature has leveled off. However be careful what you say about CO2 displacing any water vapor from the air. The partial pressures of those two components are essentially independent due to their being trace gases. The amount of O2 and N2 are very slightly affected by water vapor (due to fixed total pressure), but the much smaller CO2 partial pressure change is so small that even the O2 and N2 change is very small, and water vapor change much smaller yet.

  9. R. de Haan

    “I agree that the arctic temperature has leveled off”
    Based on what data!

    Not according to one of the longest temp records!

    With all due respect Charles Highley and Leonard Weinstein but the Arctic temperatures have not leveled off at all.

    little “warmer” transformation from summer to winter but this falls well within the natural variation.
    Simply watch the records to see for yourself.

    So, there is noting wrong with our climate, our arctic, the polar bears, the sea levels, the tropics or any other subject the climate scare mongers of this world saw a chance to make money with.

    And with all due respect, don’t you think it’s all a waste of time to discuss temperature variations of tenths of a degree on a global average?

    Don’t we have something better to do with our time.

    Do you really think we have less ice at the Arctic if temperatures are Minus 47 degree Celsius instead of minus 51 degree Celsius?

    Please read this article about the Arctic from John Daly and your worries are gone!

  10. Fred Firkin

    Tolstoy said the civilisation woould be saved by a man from the north….will the Russkies save Europe?

  11. ron from Texas

    I live in north Texas, about two towns away from the Red River or about 60 miles north of Dallas. Most winters, we get maybe one snow event, average 2 inches or less. This winter, we had 5 snow events where I live, 4 of them averaging 6 inches or more. I have lived in Texas since October of 1974 and I have not seen this much snow. We had a few winters where we might have two snow storms averaging less than 8 inches. Granted, it might still be in the realm of average fluctuations but it still shows that we hover around a central point and CO2 is doing anything detectable to hold in heat or temperature. Physically, it can’t. And there is no link between CO2 and water vapor or any scientific reason that would have CO2 causing water vapor, a normally negative feedback to swing to positive feedback. Pure and simple, like me.

  12. Al « Oh, My!

    […] Al By jbiii Heh. […]

  13. Oleg Pokrovsky

    Dear Colleagues,

    Thank you for discussion of my conclusions presented at recent IPY conference
    occurred in AARI (St.Petersburg, Russia).
    My vision of future climate is based on comprehensive analysis of climate index series analysis, which permits to reveal fundamental quasi-periodical oscillations in most components of climate system:
    -Solar activity
    -SST of ocean (AMO and PDO)
    -Surface air temperature
    – Surface irradiance
    -Ice extent in Russian Arctic Seas
    I found that that those are in strong coherence when inter-annual climate noise was removed in each of them
    My motivation might be illustrated by a set of figures presented at recent Arctic Frontiers Conference (Tromso, Norway)

    1. R. de Haan

      Oleg Pokrovsky, thank you very much for your work and your response!

      Do you know why Russia suddenly jumped the Anthropogenic Global Warming train?

      Do you think you can convince your Government of the fact they have made the wrong decision based on the wrong data?

  14. Yet Another Arctic Rescue – Global Warming « Lonnie Walker's Blog

    […] Also today, Riva Novosti released a statement saying that we’re in for global cooling.  You can read that article here. […]

  15. Ameron

    Thank you very much for the Best things of this post

  16. R. de Haan

    Apr 27, 2010
    Swedish expert says CO2 is not the main cause of global warming

    By Xuefei Chen, China People Daily

    Swedish climate expert Dr. Fred Goldberg has said that carbon dioxide is not the main cause of the global warming. The climate change is not affected by human action, but mainly by the solar activities and ocean currents such as PDO (Pacific Decadal oscillations). He even predicts that the earth is going to experience colder winters in the following years or even decades.

    Goldberg stressed that man should separate the concept of climate change from environmental issues. He holds that climate change is natural and caused by the sun activity, but the urban heat island effect and environmental problems are mainly caused by human activities and behavior. In an exclusive interview with People’s Daily Online, Goldberg explained his ideas.

    History of climate on earth

    “We could have an ice age any time,” Dr. Goldberg says, “Over the past one million years, we have experienced eight ice ages. Eighty percent of the last million years was ice age. We are lucky to live in this short inter-glacial period.” “If we go down to the last 4000 to 3500 years in the Bronze Age period, it was three degrees warmer than today on the northern hemisphere at least,” Goldberg explained. “Two thousand years ago, during the Roman period or during China’s East Han Dynasty, the temperature was two degrees higher than now,” he said. uring the Viking era a thousand years ago it was one degree Celsius warmer.

    Goldberg said there is a nearly 1000 year cycle in climate change but there is a downward trend indicating that we are going towards a new ice age within 4000 years. During the Viking era or the medieval Warm Period it was warm enough to grow grapes and cereal in England, he said. “We had a new peak in high temperature in 2002 after a solar activity maximum, now the temperature is going down again. So we are heading into a cooling period.”
    “If you look at the last 150 years, we had a warming period from 1910 to 1940 and then a cooling period from 1941 to 1977. Then it was a warming period from 1977 to 2002,” Goldberg said. This shows a 60 year cycle correlating to the ocean current PDO in the Pacific Ocean.

    During the depression period 1929-1933, the production of CO2 went down by 30 percent. But due to the increase of the global temperature, the CO2 increased in the atmosphere because of the heating of the oceans thereby emitting CO2. In 1991, there was an eruption of the Pinatubo volcano, one saw the reduction of CO2 because the volcano ash blocked the sun causing a cooling of the oceans. Goldberg said this is an indication that it was the solar activity that decides the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Can we trust the measurement of the global temperature?

    Dr. Goldberg said that there is an urban effect around heavily populated cities in our world, for example, the gap in temperature between the suburban Stockholm and the city center can often be at least 2 degrees Celsius. And the gap between Beijing city center and Great Wall area can be six degrees Celsius. The urban effect is caused by human’s construction, transportation and the density of the housing and population, but this is not a global effect.
    You cannot compensate for urban effects because you don’t know how much it is, it changes with cloudiness, time of day, sun position over the horizon, wind intensity and direction and winter or summer,” Goldberg said.

    He questioned the accuracy of the measurement in Al Gore’s The Inconvenient Truth. He said that in the USA about 900 stations accounting to 78 percent of the total are incorrectly located such as in the parking place or airports near the airplanes or runways where he believes it is definitely hotter than other natural areas such as mountains or rivers. About 90 percent of the places where they measured the temperature are not according to regulations and have an error of 1 to 5 degrees C, which he thinks is very big. The only accurate way to measure temperature is with satellite, Goldberg said.

    How much carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere?

    How much CO2 is there in the air? Only 0.0387 %, it has neither odor, nor color and is not poisonous. If there isn’t CO2, there will not be plant life, therefore, we must have CO2, we need it, Goldberg argued. He said that the average amount of water vapor is 30.000 ppm. So the consequence of that is that 95 percent or even up to 98 percent of the total greenhouse effect is water vapor while only one percent is CO2. The other greenhouse gases are ozone, methane and CFC, etc. Goldberg said even if human beings emit 100 ppm CO2, 98 percent of it will go into the ocean because of the chemical balance between the oceans and the atmosphere. The remaining 2 ppm will be added to the atmosphere which is negligible because there isn’t enough oil and gas in the world to generate enough carbon dioxide to change the climate. Over the past 100 years, with an increase of 100 ppm CO2, the earth temperature only increased 0.7 degree. Thus it is not possible for the temperature to increase 2 degrees globally which our politicians want to prevent, Goldberg said.

    Why? Goldberg explained that the ocean will absorb large amount of CO2. Once it is absorbed by the ocean, it will to some extent become calcium carbonate which is the same thing as limestone. Then the limestone will be building up at the bottom of the oceans. The whole island of Gotland which is the largest island in Sweden is formed of limestone. “It was built up at the bottom of the ocean because the ocean absorbed the CO2 and when saturated it formed limestone sediments at the bottom of the ocean. The CO2 content in the atmosphere has been shrinking continuously. A billion years ago, there was 80 percent CO2 in the atmosphere, now it is 0.038 %. It �s been shrinking all the time, it is continuing because of the formations of limestone sediments in the oceans.” Goldberg explained. He said that the transport of CO2 is controlled by ocean temperature. For example, one can send CO2 bubbles into a bottle of cold water which is about 5 degrees C, but if one opens the bottle and puts it on the table, the water temperature will increase, and the CO2 will leave the water soon.

    The same theory, the lakes absorb a lot of CO2 in winter and it releases the CO2 in summer when the temperature reaches 23 to 25 degrees, you won’t have much CO2 in the water. Thus this is a natural process and with all the minerals in sea water, the sea water can absorbs 73 times more CO2 than fresh water. “Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii is the world’s largest live volcano which emits a lot of CO2. 87 percent of the data recorded there has to be edited. The data may therefore have been manipulated,” Goldberg said.

    He said that in 1973 there was a big eruption and there were no measurements done for 3 months, but there is no data gap in the diagrams. Why? Asked Goldberg. “Many climate scientists are bluffing in order to please the politicians who want to put a tax on CO2. These scientists live in symbiosis with the politicians. They both depend on each other,” Goldberg criticized this.

    Solar activity decides whether the temperature is up or down

    Goldberg said that solar activity has increased 3 times according to records from NASA earth observatory. This is something we can’t do anything about. “The activity of the sun shows the highest activity ever recorded in 2002. Earlier history of solar activity can be seen from the distribution of isotopes in rocks and biomass which are depending on the solar activity,” Goldberg explained. Sun activity heats the sea surface, and the sea releases CO2. Over the past 100 years, 100 ppm CO2 were emitted due to the warming of the sea surface.

    In the atmosphere, there is 750 gigaton of carbon. In the ocean there is 38.100 gigatons of Carbondioxide. That is 50 times more according to the famous Henry’s Law. Henry’s law says that 98 percent of CO2 stays in the ocean while about 2 percent stays in the atmosphere. It is estimated that humans today generate about 8 gigaton CO2. Thus we release approx. one percent of CO2 to the atmosphere. The biomass is absorbing 121 gigaton and the oceans 92 gigaton. That means 28 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed each year in a cycle. All the CO2 in the air will be absorbed in less than 5 years, which means if we emit one percent a year, that percent is also included in the absorption. So one can never find more than 4 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere coming from humans,” Goldberg explained.

    Along the equator, the sun is heating the water. When the water is warmer, the water is releasing carbon dioxide (CO2). The colder the water is, the more CO2 it absorbs. And therefore the colder waters around the Arctic and Antarctica will absorb a lot of CO2. There is a huge cycle of CO2. If you take out the CO2 for plants, then the ocean will evaporate more to air. If you emit more, the ocean will take it up. Ocean controls the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The sun controls the ocean temperatures which in turn has a strong effect on the climate on earth.

    “The people of Bangladesh breaths out 75 million tons CO2 per year, Sweden generates 60 million tons per year from all its industrial activities, transports and warming of houses etc. while the people in China breathes out 700-800 million tons per year. What does it mean? It means to reduce the amount of the CO2 will have no effect on our climate at all. You cannot do anything, I mean you cannot stop the sun from coming up tomorrow morning. If we cannot stop the sun from going up in the morning, can we change the CO2 system in the atmosphere? It is self regulated and sun-controlled,” Goldberg said.

    Why comes El Nino?

    So far no one can give a good explanation on why we have El Nino or other stormy weather. But Goldberg has his explanation. The sun is heating the ocean surface and water is evaporating off. When the water evaporates from the ocean, the salinity in the surface water increases. Then the water gets heavier. So the warm water get heavier and sinks, and then the less heavy water flows up to the surface. It exposes to the sun, and the same process continues. There is a salty warm water going down, and it drifts off with the current under the surface for some time. Then suddenly the current hits another current and pushes the water up, then comes up to the surface and releases the heat it collected. It happened on the east and west side of the Pacific Ocean depending on the pattern of the current,” Goldberg said.

    Why does the arctic ice melt?

    Goldberg explained that the reason we have the Gulf Stream is that the rotation of the earth creates a force to push the water north. To stop the Gulf stream, one has to stop the rotation of the earth. It is the same theory with the ancient trade current or trade wind, when you travel from Europe to China, you have to wait for the winds to go in that direction and when you arrived in China, you have to wait another six months until the wind change direction so that you could sail back again.

    Goldberg said in 1977, there was a great climate shift in the Pacific Ocean, the temperature in Alaska increased by 3 degree C in one year. In 2008, it decreased 3 degrees back to normal which means the warm water is not going to the Arctic Ocean any more. “So when you hear the ice in Arctic Ocean is disappearing, it was because of this warm current flowing to the Arctic. Now it has stopped. So the ice is building up again. Very few seems to have understood this. They think it is the global warming that has melted the ice, but in fact, it is the warm current that melted the ice,” Goldberg said. Then also strong currents carried the ice out into the Atlantic where it melts.
    Goldberg said whether the current is warm or cold depends on if the PDO is positive or negative. If it is positive, there is warm current entering the Arctic Ocean and if it is negative, the warm water stays in the western Pacific Ocean.

    Goldberg already predicted in the summer of 2009 that the 2010 winter will be a very cold one because the solar activity was zero according to data in NASA in the US and Kiruna in Northern Sweden. “If we look at the history, we see almost three years without sun spot. Thus, I think it will be cold. Last time with a similar situation was between 1810 and 1812. That also coincided with the time when Napoleon invaded Moscow,” said Goldberg. “I think China should prepare for future cold weather because as a consequence the food production will go down.” Goldberg concluded.

    Goldberg focuses on climate issues for over a dozen years with well grounded science knowledge. He used to teach in Sweden’s Royal Technology University.

    1. Oleg Pokrovsky

      Dear Dr de Haan,

      Thank you for your detailed comments.
      In fact, I came to similar conclusions while analyzed many available time series.
      I found that solar activity (next after 11-year) quasi-periodical cycle is close to 68-70 years. It drives ocean. There is 17- year delay between North Atlantic and Pacific due to global conveyer found by Prof Brocker in 90-th. Deep water branch of conveyer has a scale of 800-1000 years.
      But there are several other solar oscillations. Next one is close to 380-420 years. That is why I assume that solar activity minimum (analog Maunder) is close ahead.

  17. ngvxsite

    Knowledge and Good idea to. Dealing with Heating and air conditioning

  18. Global Cooling Consensus Is Heating Up – Cooling Over The Next 1 To 3 Decades

    […] Read here NoTricksZone. […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy